Four Seasons Land Deal

[Master Yoda]

What would stop the new owners of the land from building a hotel similar to what you see near DTD? Probably nothing. They have already announced projects in addition to the hotel. I never mentioned what benefits the resort guests might or might not get. :shrug:

Any preconditions to the sale that Disney has set would prevent them from doing that. I am not privy to those but I simply can not see Disney giving anyone cart blanch.

 

[Brian Noble]

Not to scare people,

I'll have some of what you are smoking, please.

 

[captainkidd]

I love that the 4 Seasons will be there, I am just troubled by Disney giving up the land. There seems to be no end to this trend. This is hardly the first sell off WDW has done and I doubt it is the last.

Although I know nothing of the Four Seasons, this is how I feel too. The Swan and Dolphin is completely different. Disney owns that land. They won't own this land.

My concern isn't so much this particular deal, but what lies ahead. Should we assume since River Country has been laying dormant for a decade, that Disney will sell that off? What about the Legendary section of Pop Century? What about all the unused space in between Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Why not sell that off too?

 

[Master Yoda]

Although I know nothing of the Four Seasons, this is how I feel too. The Swan and Dolphin is completely different. Disney owns that land. They won't own this land.

My concern isn't so much this particular deal, but what lies ahead. Should we assume since River Country has been laying dormant for a decade, that Disney will sell that off? What about the Legendary section of Pop Century? What about all the unused space in between Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Why not sell that off too?

Would you rather those two properties remain in their dilapidated state or see them developed by a third party that was held to Disney standards?

 

[devoy1701]

Would you rather those two properties remain in their dilapidated state or see them developed by a third party that was held to Disney standards?

I would much rather see them lay dormant and dilapidated if it must (ie: River Country, Pop Century) and be kept for the next generation of management to redevelop the land then for current management to sell of what assets they think would serve them better as cash. Just because Meg Crofton and her team can't find the resources to redevelop that property now doesn't mean it will always sit in it's current state.

what you're saying basically is that whatever land WDW doesn't already have developed or plan to develop within the near future they should sell off. In that case we'd have the same case here as over with Disneyland. Maybe the Disney Co should have just bought what they needed for MK in and the surround hotels for that matter?

 

[captainkidd]

Would you rather those two properties remain in their dilapidated state or see them developed by a third party that was held to Disney standards?

I'd rather have them do nothing with it than sell it off. Better yet, I'd rather have them do something with it themselves. Is Disney currently not creative enough to think of something profitable to do with 300 acres of land?

 

[yankspy]

It is hard to comment on this without knowing the full details of the land purchase. It is possible that Disney included several clauses in the contract as far as what can and can not be done with the land. I would be a little more receptive to this deal if that were the case.

 

[devoy1701]

It is hard to comment on this without knowing the full details of the land purchase. It is possible that Disney included several clauses in the contract as far as what can and can not be done with the land. I would be a little more receptive to this deal if that were the case.

no matter what the stipulations...at the end of the day it's 298 less acres Disney owns for their future development. That area is 2.79 times the size of Magic Kingdom, more than half the size of Epcot, and 5 times the size of the Wilderness Lodge Property or Typhoon Lagoon.

About 1/3 of the 27,500 acres has been developed already...and 7,500 of the remaining land has been set aside as a forest preserve. That leaves 10,000 acres left of undeveloped land. By the looks of googleearth...there are only 2 or 3 sites large enough for another theme park and it's accompanying facitilies...depending on which parts have been designated a forest preserve.

 

[Master Yoda]

I would much rather see them lay dormant and dilapidated if it must (ie: River Country, Pop Century) and be kept for the next generation of management to redevelop the land then for current management to sell of what assets they think would serve them better as cash. Just because Meg Crofton and her team can't find the resources to redevelop that property now doesn't mean it will always sit in it's current state.

what you're saying basically is that whatever land WDW doesn't already have developed or plan to develop within the near future they should sell off. In that case we'd have the same case here as over with Disneyland. Maybe the Disney Co should have just bought what they needed for MK in and the surround hotels for that matter?

No, what I am saying is that if those 2 current eyesores are to be left as eyesores from now until the end of time the we the public would be much better served by the property going to a third party that under contract would be developed to Disney standards. I do not want to see River Country turn into a Wet n Wild style park but I would have no problem whatsoever if a third party came in and turned it into a POTC style water park, resort or whatever, just as long as it meets the standards set forth by Disney. Just because Disney does not build it or own it does not make it bad. Look at Disney Sea and Pixar. You need not go any farther to prove that an outside owner or compnay can do Disney as good or better than Disney currently can.

 

[captainkidd]

No, what I am saying is that if those 2 current eyesores are to be left as eyesores from now until the end of time the we the public would be much better served by the property going to a third party that under contract would be developed to Disney standards. I do not want to see River Country turn into a Wet n Wild style park but I would have no problem whatsoever if a third party came in and turned it into a POTC style water park, resort or whatever, just as long as it meets the standards set forth by Disney. Just because Disney does not build it or own it does not make it bad. Look at Disney Sea and Pixar. You need not go any farther to prove that an outside owner or compnay can do Disney as good or better than Disney currently can.

I think you have 2 schools of thought here:

1.Concern over the agreement itself and what the stipulations are in regards to an outside company doing "what they want" on that property.

2.At what point, does it stop? Maybe Disney will say "Joe Schmo and Sons could do a better job running the Magic Kingdom. Let's sell it to them."

 

[Master Yoda]

I'd rather have them do nothing with it than sell it off. Better yet, I'd rather have them do something with it themselves. Is Disney currently not creative enough to think of something profitable to do with 300 acres of land?

It depends on your definition of creativity. IMHO what they did was creative. That 300 acres got them the 5 star resort that they have been unable or unwilling to create for 38 years.

 

[Master Yoda]

I think you have 2 schools of thought here:

1.Concern over the agreement itself and what the stipulations are in regards to an outside company doing "what they want" on that property.

2.At what point, does it stop? Maybe Disney will say "Joe Schmo and Sons could do a better job running the Magic Kingdom. Let's sell it to them."

Those schools of thought are really one and the same. The two schools of thought here are really this...

1. If an outside company can develop property inside of WDW that meets Disney's high standards then it should be explored and executed if it will improve WDW.

2. If Disney does not do it then it should not be done.

 

[devoy1701]

Those schools of thought are really one and the same. The two schools of thought here are really this...

1. If an outside company can develop property inside of WDW that meets Disney's high standards then it should be explored and executed if it will improve WDW.

2. If Disney does not do it then it should not be done.

I don't have a probelm with a 3rd party developer coming in to develop land to Disney's standards. ie, The Swan and Dolphin developed by the Tishman group is a perfect example. But at the end of the 99-year land lease the property returns back to Disney's control. If Disney had LEASED the land to the 4 Seasons then I would have no problem with this deal. I'm sure Disney gets a share of the profits and gets a say in all development, architectual and construction decisions on the property, but there is probably a time frame on that. In the end, unless the resort does poorly and Disney gets the opportunity to repurchase the property...it's still 300 acres that is no longer disney owned and operated.

 

[Master Yoda]

I don't have a probelm with a 3rd party developer coming in to develop land to Disney's standards. ie, The Swan and Dolphin developed by the Tishman group is a perfect example. But at the end of the 99-year land lease the property returns back to Disney's control. If Disney had LEASED the land to the 4 Seasons then I would have no problem with this deal. I'm sure Disney gets a share of the profits and gets a say in all development, architectual and construction decisions on the property, but there is probably a time frame on that. In the end, unless the resort does poorly and Disney gets the opportunity to repurchase the property...it's still 300 acres that is no longer disney owned and operated.

Again we do not know the specifics of the contract. For all we know Disney has the right to buy the property back. Sure it is 300 acres that is no longer currently owned by Disney but it is owned by a company that in the resort business has a better reputation than Disney. Had this property been sold to someone like Marriott there would be cause for concern.

 

[yankspy]

I don't have a probelm with a 3rd party developer coming in to develop land to Disney's standards. ie, The Swan and Dolphin developed by the Tishman group is a perfect example. But at the end of the 99-year land lease the property returns back to Disney's control. If Disney had LEASED the land to the 4 Seasons then I would have no problem with this deal. I'm sure Disney gets a share of the profits and gets a say in all development, architectual and construction decisions on the property, but there is probably a time frame on that. In the end, unless the resort does poorly and Disney gets the opportunity to repurchase the property...it's still 300 acres that is no longer disney owned and operated.

I see your point. However, that could be one of the stipulations. Disney could have first right of purchase for that land if Four Seasons decided to sell it.

 

[captainkidd]

It depends on your definition of creativity. IMHO what they did was creative. That 300 acres got them the 5 star resort that they have been unable or unwilling to create for 38 years.

Another theme park. Another water park. Another, Disney-owned Resort. My feeling is, they're taking the quick, easy and lazy way out. Let's just sell it off and make a quick buck. I only hope this isn't the beginning of a new trend with the company.

 

[Eyorefan]

Can we put some things in perspective guys....

Disney sold 298 of it's 27,400 acres. That is slightly more than 1% of its current holdings.They did not sell it to Ramada or motel six but the 4 Seasons. A company that defines luxury in the resort industry. Disney has wanted a 5 star resort pretty much forever and will now finally have it. Why did they just not build one themselves you may ask? Simply put they can't. Most people do not know that there is no unified rating hotel system in the US. There is no check lits that someone can go down and say "This is a 5 star resort" Every travel company seems to have their own set of rules and the name is a big part of those systems. For whatever reason, be it lack of a golf course, being kid friendly, or simply the stigma behind the name Disney a Disney created resort is almost guaranteed to never get that elusive 5th star regardless of how luxurious it is.

I hear several people complaining how the look of this resort will destroy Disney and nothing could be further form the truth. First of all it is unlikely that you will even be able to see this resort from another and you will definitely not be able to see it from any of the parks. Secondly this resort will make the GF look like one of the All Stars.

Disney sold a sliver of already developed property and will get an incredible 5 star resort on property out of the deal. IMHO they made the right choice.

While I agree with you that I don't think the actually resort that is being built will be a horriable eyesore (in fact, I think it will be an assite). There is no way Disney will maintain any control over the land in the future.

I agree with others who would rather have seen Disney lease the land to the Four Seasons. I agree that Disney will never be able to build a 5 star hotel themselves. I don't have a problem with this new building being owned, built and managed by an outside company. I do however wish that Disney had maintained ownership of the that it sits on. For reasons others have stated.

 

[Master Yoda]

Another theme park. Another water park. Another, Disney-owned Resort. My feeling is, they're taking the quicky, easy and lazy way out. Let's just sell it off and make a quick buck.

1. Already in the works.
2. Not Needed.
3. Don't count on Disney building anything but DVC for a while.

 

[Master Yoda]

While I agree with you that I don't think the actually resort that is being built will be a horriable eyesore (in fact, I think it will be an assite). There is no way Disney will maintain any control over the land in the future.

I agree with others who would rather have seen Disney lease the land to the Four Seasons. I agree that Disney will never be able to build a 5 star hotel themselves. I don't have a problem with this new building being owned, built and managed by an outside company. I do however wish that Disney had maintained ownership of the that it sits on. For reasons others have stated.

Sure, that would have been great but I am guessing that 4 seasons would not go for the lease idea which I completely understand. If I was going to invest millions in developing a property I would want to own it and have the leverage that ownership gives.

 

[SpectroMan]

Maybe the Disney Co should have just bought what they needed for MK in and the surround hotels for that matter?

I would like to remind you of the history of the Walt Disney Resort, especially the original plans for the land. The Magic Kingdom was the only park planned, and that was the only part that was supposed to change the mistakes of Disneyland. The rest of the property was supposed to be designed and created as a city where the leasing and selling of land would create a beautiful and wonderful living environment. Disney was going to sell land for homes, businesses, and industry, but they were going to control building codes, etc.

How does this Four Seasons deal change any of the original thoughts on Disney World? The answer is "it does not." Disney saw where they were lacking, and found a great partner to accomplish a goal. Disney will still have tight control on what Four Seasons does with the property, and will create a beautiful, relaxing, lush resort. This is closer to Disney's original plan than building more theme parks.