If they had to do it again........

[Brewer]

Do you think Disney would do anything differently at WDW if they had it all to do again?

Would all the parks as is now be built or do you think with hindsight different ones would be.

Would they be built where they are or moved elsewhere on property?

And what about the resorts?

 

[mitchk]

Good questions ..... I wish I had answers :wave:

 

[Gooch]

Maybe they'd nitpick and change a few things, but nothing major. Everything obviously is pretty great as is.

 

[daliseurat]

If you mean if the Disney of today were to build WDW today I think they'd do a whole lot of things differently. I think so much would be built on the cheap, and so many wonderful things wouldn't exist. I don't believe they would be taking any risks. I don't think they'd build themed resorts. They wouldn't have an example to prove that it works.

But if you mean, knowing what they know now, would they change anything, I think they'd probably have built more resorts earlier, and built more transportation. They found out too late that they could get more people on property if they had more resorts.

 

[Kamikaze]

Do you think Disney would do anything differently at WDW if they had it all to do again?

Would all the parks as is now be built or do you think with hindsight different ones would be.

Would they be built where they are or moved elsewhere on property?

And what about the resorts?

Are you talking about 'what would Walt do'? Or some other person who was instrumental in the companies history? Because the answers are quite different.

If you mean if the Disney of today were to build WDW today I think they'd do a whole lot of things differently. I think so much would be built on the cheap, and so many wonderful things wouldn't exist. I don't believe they would be taking any risks. I don't think they'd build themed resorts. They wouldn't have an example to prove that it works.

But if you mean, knowing what they know now, would they change anything, I think they'd probably have built more resorts earlier, and built more transportation. They found out too late that they could get more people on property if they had more resorts.

Absolutely correct. Most people tend to forget that, while the MK area resorts were themed well, the people running TWDC and WDW before Eisner were by and large happy with 3 hotels and giving the rest of the business to people off property.

I think TPTB would have created some other form of transportation to those new hotels when Eisner had them built though. Not necessarily a monorail, but some other form of looped mass transit for sure.

 

[miles1]

Hmm. Very interesting premise for a thread.

I think that we live in a very different world than we did when the MK and Epcot were built. Disney seems to have gone from having a "cost be damned" philosophy to a very ROI-conscious one over the years. With that said, here's a few things that I think are pretty obvious:

I doubt the MK would be separated from the parking area by the lagoon as it is now. The cost of running the ferries and monorail from the TTC to the park must be astronomical. While it adds to the majic and gives the feeling of separation from the outside world, I doubt today's bottom-line oriented guys would have given the go ahead for the monorail to be used as an extensive transportation link. There may have been a loop to the premier hotels on the lake, but it wouldn't have been used to transport 80% of the guests to the park each day. I doubt the Epcot line would have been built as well.

Epcot- I believe the layout would have been different. While SSE is the anchor attraction of future world, it creates a bottleneck right at the park's entrance. Also, the pavilions would have been themed to require less updating every few years to remain current with a "future" theme.

The Studios- In it's early years parking was always and issue until it went through a major enlargement after the park opened. I also think that many of the attractions would have been done differently. Not that its poor, but the park has always seemed to be searching for an identity.

Resorts- The Pop Century sticks out as a obvious "do-over"; half of it is still sitting uncompleted, collecting dust. I have to wonder if Disney would have built as many moderate and budget hotel rooms that it did, if it could reconsider them. It's the law of supply and demand- if the supply of rooms was more in line with demand, we wouldn't be seeing discounted rooms and free dining offers as much, and room rates would probably be higher as well so each resort could turn a higher profit.

It's easy for me to sit here and play Monday Morning Quarterback. As I said, the decisions that we would make today are considerably different from those of 20 to 40 years ago.

 

[RiversideBunny]

I have heard that some wish that Animal Kingdom had been designed with a large open area somewhere, so that the park would not seem so claustrophic.

 

[Brewer]

To be honest I was thinking about whether in hindsight they would do anything different having learned what worked and what didn't.

It didn't cross my mind about the 'corporation' and cost implications which raises a lot of questions that i hadn't thought of.

 

[elizs77]

I wish that someone had thought more about the design of the Swan and the Dolphin in terms of its location in the World. I hate being able to see it from Epcot! IMHO, they are not attractive buildings in the least, and I find them distracting from my park experience. If they wanted to build something so tall and different, I wish it had been built more away from everything, like over near DTD or something.

 

[Kamikaze]

Resorts- The Pop Century sticks out as a obvious "do-over"; half of it is still sitting uncompleted, collecting dust. I have to wonder if Disney would have built as many moderate and budget hotel rooms that it did, if it could reconsider them. It's the law of supply and demand- if the supply of rooms was more in line with demand, we wouldn't be seeing discounted rooms and free dining offers as much, and room rates would probably be higher as well so each resort could turn a higher profit.

Ah, but if the discount or free dining entices you to go, they are getting money from you that they weren't going to get.

You know when you go shopping and something is 30% off? They are still making money on it. Same deal here.

This is the same thing that the analyst from Citi that downgraded the stock a month or so ago said. Room discounts at WDW don't mean the same thing they do at any other resorts, because they get your money on tickets, dining, merchandise, etc etc etc. You have to view it as a whole, not as individual segments. If they give you $30 off a night, but you spend $30 a day on tickets, and another $20 on food, they have turned a profit of $20 that they wouldn't have had if you weren't going to go without that discount.

As far as supply and demand goes, most of the hotels are at or very close to capacity at peak season. Can't hope to do better than that. You don't want to overbooked at any point, so that means they need MORE rooms, not less.

 

[Kamikaze]

I wish that someone had thought more about the design of the Swan and the Dolphin in terms of its location in the World. I hate being able to see it from Epcot! IMHO, they are not attractive buildings in the least. If they wanted to build something so tall and different, I wish it had been built more away from everything, like over near DTD or something.

Disney didn't build the Swan and Dolphin. If you want an in-depth explanation of why they were built, and why that location, pick up DisneyWar. But as quickly as possible, when they wanted to expand their hotel offerings, they were going to partner with other hotel companies so they didn't have to pay all the costs. Eisner realized they were throwing money away by doing this, and decided that Disney would build all its own hotels. The S&D contract was already completed, so the hotels were built.

 

[miles1]

I wish that someone had thought more about the design of the Swan and the Dolphin in terms of its location in the World. I hate being able to see it from Epcot! IMHO, they are not attractive buildings in the least, and I find them distracting from my park experience. If they wanted to build something so tall and different, I wish it had been built more away from everything, like over near DTD or something.

There's a very long explanation as to why they are where they are and how they were designed. You may want to pick up the book "Realityland", which is a fun read.

 

[raven]

Do you think Disney would do anything differently at WDW if they had it all to do again?

Would all the parks as is now be built or do you think with hindsight different ones would be.

Would they be built where they are or moved elsewhere on property?

Walt picked the location on the property for MK and EPCOT himself. Even though EPCOT wasn't what he wanted it to be (due to political reasons he couldn't build a self-governed "city") it's roughly in the same location he wanted it to be in.

Disney didn't build the Swan and Dolphin. If you want an in-depth explanation of why they were built, and why that location, pick up DisneyWar. But as quickly as possible, when they wanted to expand their hotel offerings, they were going to partner with other hotel companies so they didn't have to pay all the costs. Eisner realized they were throwing money away by doing this, and decided that Disney would build all its own hotels. The S&D contract was already completed, so the hotels were built.

Yep, read that book a few years back. But although they aren't official Disney resorts, Disney designed the renderings for these resorts due to their proximity and sight lines within EPCOT and the Studios. Everything had to fit in somehow.

 

[NewfieFan]

Ah, but if the discount or free dining entices you to go, they are getting money from you that they weren't going to get.

You know when you go shopping and something is 30% off? They are still making money on it. Same deal here.

This is the same thing that the analyst from Citi that downgraded the stock a month or so ago said. Room discounts at WDW don't mean the same thing they do at any other resorts, because they get your money on tickets, dining, merchandise, etc etc etc. You have to view it as a whole, not as individual segments. If they give you $30 off a night, but you spend $30 a day on tickets, and another $20 on food, they have turned a profit of $20 that they wouldn't have had if you weren't going to go without that discount.

As far as supply and demand goes, most of the hotels are at or very close to capacity at peak season. Can't hope to do better than that. You don't want to overbooked at any point, so that means they need MORE rooms, not less.

Ah, good points! I think Disney could actually do with a few more Value resorts. I know people who wanted to stay at Disney but couldn't b/c the resorts (value, at least) were full. No, they didn't book months in advance but if the resorts are selling out months in advance in peak season then Disney could use a few more hotels on site! It's always win-win for Disney when you stay at their hotels - if they have you on site they know you'll be in their parks!

 

[miles1]

This is the same thing that the analyst from Citi that downgraded the stock a month or so ago said. Room discounts at WDW don't mean the same thing they do at any other resorts, because they get your money on tickets, dining, merchandise, etc etc etc. You have to view it as a whole, not as individual segments. If they give you $30 off a night, but you spend $30 a day on tickets, and another $20 on food, they have turned a profit of $20 that they wouldn't have had if you weren't going to go without that discount.

As far as supply and demand goes, most of the hotels are at or very close to capacity at peak season. Can't hope to do better than that. You don't want to overbooked at any point, so that means they need MORE rooms, not less.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but if they need MORE rooms why haven't they finished POP? Because it's more effcient for them to operate the All-Stars and finished half of POP at or near capacity than to operate both of them at one-half capacity, which is what would happen with more rooms in the off season. I have to wonder if any of the budget or moderates actually turn a profit during the off season, given the level of upkeep, attention and staffing that Disney gives them. I'm sure each resort has considerable overhead to cover before running in the black. Granted, some of this will be made up through park admission and food sales, but if the resort can break even at 3/4 capacity, the additional revenue from park sales is all gravy. If they have two resorts running a loss at 1/2 capacity, there's less overall profit.

I'm probably quarterbacking again. I'm sure Disney's bean counters have analyzed this over and over.

 

[TheBeatles]

It would probably be less stylistic, creative, and serene.

 

[Kamikaze]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but if they need MORE rooms why haven't they finished POP? Because it's more effcient for them to operate the All-Stars and finished half of POP at or near capacity than to operate both of them at one-half capacity, which is what would happen with more rooms in the off season. I have to wonder if any of the budget or moderates actually turn a profit during the off season, given the level of upkeep, attention and staffing that Disney gives them. I'm sure each resort has considerable overhead to cover before running in the black. Granted, some of this will be made up through park admission and food sales, but if the resort can break even at 3/4 capacity, the additional revenue from park sales is all gravy. If they have two resorts running a loss at 1/2 capacity, there's less overall profit.

I'm probably quarterbacking again. I'm sure Disney's bean counters have analyzed this over and over.

They were waiting to judge how many of the rooms should be Family Suites. They have about two years worth of booking information on the suites now, so they should have enough to use to determine that.

Part of the problem now is that the foundations may need to be replaced due to the weather of 7-8 years sitting there.

I'm pretty confident we will see construction of some sort restart there this year.

As far as operating at a loss, again, you have to take everything into account together. Keep in mind, also, that even in the slowest periods, hotels are not usually operating at a low capacity, like 50%. After 9/11, sure, yes they were, but not anymore. 9/11 basically set back the hotels 6-8 years. They are seeing the attendance and booking numbers they were seeing in 2000 and 2001 again now, maybe even a little higher.

On the original topic, one thing that would have been different is that TWDC would never have purchased this huge amount of land.

 

[marni1971]

Disney didn't build the Swan and Dolphin..

No, but bear in mind it was Eisner who dictated they should be built where they are now and not on BVD, and he also picked the winning design - personally breaking the `not seen from a park` rule :wave:

What would be done differently.... money aside, I`m sure Tomorrowland would be designed this time before they began to build it. Fantasyland wouldn`t be a bottleneck. 20K would use Dry for Wet. Certain capacity errors wouldn`t be made. MSUSA would get DLP-style rear corridors.

 

[Brewer]

So the land the Dolphin and Swan are on - is it leased from Disney or was that bit sold to the operators.

If it is leased do we know how long the lease was for.

 

[Kamikaze]

So the land the Dolphin and Swan are on - is it leased from Disney or was that bit sold to the operators.

If it is leased do we know how long the lease was for.

Disney owns the land.