Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
So it’s a matter of perspective - glass half full and all that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Is attendance really down at WDW this or…
- Thread starter coachb
- Start date
Quietmouse
Active Member
Disney world is too expensive for the average family to afford. Inflation is making many American families worry about groceries and feeding their family. So many families have stopped paying on their cc debt and other debt and are really in survival mode right now.
That said, 4k at Disney world vs a royal Caribbean cruise / you can have a great cruise experience with all inclusive food and spend less than 3k for a week , compared to 4 days at Disney world which could run you north of 4k.
That said, 4k at Disney world vs a royal Caribbean cruise / you can have a great cruise experience with all inclusive food and spend less than 3k for a week , compared to 4 days at Disney world which could run you north of 4k.
Less expensive to build on than marginally unsuitable. The area is designated long term expansion.
Nevermore525
Well-Known Member
There’s also land designated Marginally Suitable. That’s mostly the land behind Tiana’s.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
You have to remember how they look at the parks now. Attractions have a dollar signs on them and they expect ROI for every inch of a park. So something like Muppets, Rivers of America and Tom Sawyer Island don't generate revenue in terms of LL so they had to go.
Indeed. The highest res version is more detailed.
If I was in that predicament it would be foolish to run continue to run up the credit card debt just to go on vacation. Not rocket science to figure that out . Staycation and picking up a part time job while being on paid company vacation from your full time employer is one way to help pay down debt but that requires sacrifice and a change of mindset.
The only area I can really comment on is the whole "Marginally Unsuitable for Development" thing.
It will all depend on why the property is considered "Marginally Unsuitable for development" as there is no real set definition or list of criteria that you can apply to all land and define it as such. In most of the cases I have had dealings with, companies define properties with terms like "suitable", "unsuitable", etc. based on the cost of developing the land relative to the profit they can generate from developing it. A higher cost is less suitable. That cost threshold varies by the company and what they plan on doing with the land. If the value per square foot goes up, so do the numbers for what is "suitable", "unsuitable", etc. Any negative terms used to describe a piece of property doesn't outright mean it is impossible to build on, it typically just costs more.
Things that drive up the cost would include structural stability of the land, accessibility, existing infrastructure, existing structures, zoning and legal classification, topography, EPA issues, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
In the simplest terms, a piece of property that is flat, undeveloped, correctly zoned, and with good access will often get a "Sutiable" rating. Change even one of those factors, some of which are nothing more than paperwork, and it can drop the land to "Unsuitable".
This is just an educated guess, but Disney will most likely build on land they have already determined to be what they consider "suitable". However, the only thing that precludes them from building on other land classifications is cost. If they determine that the cost is worth it, then they will build pretty much wherever they please.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…you wouldn’t suggest someone called to put their thumb on the scale, would you?
lentesta
Premium Member
Nope. I’m told it’s just a staffing issue and I believe it.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…I tend never to believe in “coincidence”
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Did we get those numbers yet?
lentesta
Premium Member
Dr.GrantSeeker
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness, and honestly this is probably a very premature question to be asking, but will all of these attractions and changes really fix WDW's attendance problem? Not even just from an attendance standpoint, but between paying for LL, still a total lack of perks and reduced value for the cost of a wdw vacation. Is this enough? I know we are years away from even the first of these announcements to open, but in Disney's eyes for them is it as simple as, "hey look at all these new big flashy rides we just built!" and the masses will start flooding WDW again? Will they see these attractions as an increased perceived value to the cost which will obviously be much higher by the time all this opens. I mean we know that Tron, Cosmic Rewind and TBA, and the entire Epcot "Transformation" didn't bring in the numbers that they were hoping for. Yes it's a necessity at this point for wdw overall to get some serious investment and hopefully added capacity. But I am curious to see how it all plays out over the next 5-8 years.
Grimley1968
Well-Known Member
It would be a surprise to me if it did work, even in the long term, assuming all of it happens the way they laid it out.
a) It still seems like they're not in a mode of adding capacity, but replacing attractions already gone or gone as a result of building the new attractions.
b) Carsland already exists in California, so it's not really a new thing. California also has a Monsters ride, so that's also not really new. The Villains area sounds interesting, but that will probably be even further behind than the other attractions, because of the lack of a template to copy.
c) At least in MK, the stuff they're planning to remove is integral to the overall atmosphere of two different areas of the park. It's true that TSI and the riverboat weren't huge draws lately, but the sightlines along the canal have always been pleasing to many. Replacing that with, I'd guess, landscaping separating Cars from Frontierland and Liberty Square just won't be as relaxing/appealing, IMO. It could be downright boring.
They seem to be going after first time visitors at the expense of return visitors. I can't see how that helps overall attendance, especially with their prices continually rising out of reach of much of the American public.
Last edited:
Seems like someone forgot about the Fantasmic theatre , walkways area at DHS. That area has be deader than a door nail during the day for a few decades.
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
Right?? I have discussed this with a friend and we, just off the top of the head, named a few different areas that have been abandoned for the longest time and could be repurposed. I dont know if it would be easy or not but with the fact that this park needs so many more attractions to get people in the door, it is worth looking at. Marie
vagabondarts
Member
I keep hearing how slow the parks are but I watch a lot of ride videos while working and they seem as busy as ever to me.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Poseidon Quest
Well-Known Member
Looks like the new TEA report is out: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:13691780-8574-4346-89a1-7841afe1c597
3.4% increase in attendance at Magic Kingdom from 2022? I think the numbers are very wrong. That park was unusually quiet through April, May and June of last year.
3.4% increase in attendance at Magic Kingdom from 2022? I think the numbers are very wrong. That park was unusually quiet through April, May and June of last year.