Long live the Eastern Gateway or how I learned to love the Anaheim City Council after the election.

[choco choco]

Ok so the Eastern Gateway improves security AND provides an opportunity for expansion. Why do some of your care so much how it’s being explained by Disney?

It is not being explained this way by Disney. It is being explained here by some guy who claims these are Disney's concerns and yet he can't explain one of the major holes in his argument. Which is, "If either Disney or Anaheim is so convinced the current transit area is such a security problem, why would everyone agree to mothball any improvements whatsoever when there are simple ways to address it now?" There is a huge difference between a hundreds millions dollar project and a couple million to just move some road bollards.

The Eastern Gateway can improve security and provide opportunity for expansion. But trying to justify the Eastern Gateway mainly as a security project is dishonest. If I remember correctly, Disney never argued the Eastern Gateway for security purposes. It was mainly about parking and rideshare drop-offs in preparation for Star Wars Land. Darbeer is trying to justify it now as a security issue mainly because the parking issue has been alleviated somewhat.

 

[mickEblu]

It is not being explained this way by Disney. It is being explained here by some guy who claims these are Disney's concerns and yet he can't explain one of the major holes in his argument. Which is, "If either Disney or Anaheim is so convinced the current transit area is such a security problem, why would everyone agree to mothball any improvements whatsoever when there are simple ways to address it now?" There is a huge difference between a hundreds millions dollar project and a couple million to just move some road bollards.

The Eastern Gateway can improve security and provide opportunity for expansion. But trying to justify the Eastern Gateway mainly as a security project is dishonest. If I remember correctly, Disney never argued the Eastern Gateway for security purposes. It was mainly about parking and rideshare drop-offs in preparation for Star Wars Land. Darbeer is trying to justify it now as a security issue mainly because the parking issue has been alleviated somewhat.

Nobody here has ever heard of killing two birds with one stone? Also, Who cares how it’s being justified? It’s a good thing. More security and DCA expansion are good things. Just the same pessimistic people being pessimistic. Just because they have security concerns that doesn’t mean they need to address them overnight and it’s not as if there is some known imminent threat they are worried about.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nobody here has ever heard of killing two birds with one stone? Also, Who cares how it’s being justified? It’s a good thing. More security and DCA expansion are good things. Just the same pessimistic people being pessimistic.

It’s a bad urban design that prioritizes personal automobiles and removes pedestrians from the public realm. That is why the justification is important, because of its negative impacts. Like you said, you can kill two birds with one stone by not only providing expansion space and improved security but also improve the urban design of Harbor Blvd instead of hurting it.

 

[mickEblu]

It’s a bad urban design that prioritizes personal automobiles and removes pedestrians from the public realm. That is why the justification is important, because of its negative impacts. Like you said, you can kill two birds with one stone by not only providing expansion space and improved security but also improve the urban design of Harbor Blvd instead of hurting it.

So how exactly is it hurting it? The people coming from San Diego won’t have direct access to the IHOP they weren’t going to eat at anyway?

 

[lazyboy97o]

So how exactly is it hurting it? The people coming from San Diego won’t have direct access to the IHOP they weren’t going to eat at anyway?

@FerretAfros wrote several great posts explaining the issues with the design. Removing potential customers is part of the problem because those businesses do depend on people who are coming to the Resort District and not people just passing through or making a specific trip. It was incredibly inconvenient to hotel guests and while Disney acquiesced on rear access that just moves more people away from the street-fronting businesses.

The Eastern Gateway also aligned with a larger vision held by some to undo some of the pedestrian oriented design of the Resort District and reprioritize Harbor Blvd as more of a highway for through traffic. The increase in vagrancy around the Resort District is not because the businesses are closed but because the people are gone. Removing people by design will have a similar outcome. Removing people to try to increase vehicular throughput will likely result in greater delays and collisions as driving will be inappropriate for the environment and pedestrians seek more convenient access.

 

[mickEblu]

@FerretAfros wrote several great posts explaining the issues with the design. Removing potential customers is part of the problem because those businesses do depend on people who are coming to the Resort District and not people just passing through or making a specific trip. It was incredibly inconvenient to hotel guests and while Disney acquiesced on rear access that just moves more people away from the street-fronting businesses.

The Eastern Gateway also aligned with a larger vision held by some to undo some of the pedestrian oriented design of the Resort District and reprioritize Harbor Blvd as more of a highway for through traffic. The increase in vagrancy around the Resort District is not because the businesses are closed but because the people are gone. Removing people by design will have a similar outcome. Removing people to try to increase vehicular throughput will likely result in greater delays and collisions as driving will be inappropriate for the environment and pedestrians seek more convenient access.

I would imagine the vast majority of customers of those businesses are from people staying at the hotels on Harbor in which case they would still have easy access no? How many people are driving to Disneyland for the day and stopping at any of those businesses on Harbor? .00001% ?

 

[Darkbeer1]

There was a lengthy discussion of the Security issues at the original Planning Commission meeting on December 12th, 2016.

You can watch the entire meeting here. (In multiple parts)

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would imagine the vast majority of customers of those businesses are from people staying at the hotels on Harbor in which case they would still have easy access no? How many people are driving to Disneyland for the day and stopping at any of those businesses on Harbor? .00001% ?

Just because a route exists does not mean it will be used, especially if it is made inconvenient. As someone who has walked over to Denny’s with others I did not know making a similar trip I find it hard to believe this was some bizarre anomaly.

But again going back to a point already well laid out by @FerretAfros, getting into the tit-for-tat of prioritizing this business versus that business is not conducive to developing good design. Urban design is is about the bigger picture, it needs to be able to accommodate a variety of different and changing users. It shouldn’t be about supporting this business or that business, but providing a desirable space for its primary users. That is the real question, should this space support the longer stay tourists, the day tripper or those driving through? The Resort District is actually not that unique in terms of bigger ideas as those same groups of locals, commuters and through traffic are the same different users of all urban spaces. The order of priority given to those groups changes the appropriateness of a design response. Too often this is viewed as a zero sum game where one group must prevail over the others. That is very often the case when commuters or through traffic is prioritized but when placed in the order of locals first, commuters second and through traffic third you can create vibrant, desirable places that work well for all users. Sure, you’re not going to get the the through traffic traveling at 70 mph but in an urban context that was never going to happen no matter how many extra wide lanes you add to the roads.

Some aspects of urban design are counter intuitive (eg. slowing down can be faster) but we’ve also spent the past 70 years stuck in a backwards mindset of prioritizing commuters and through traffic at the expense of the people who actually inhabit and use places. Even the suburbs became more inconvenient and dangerous because they prioritize reverse commuters (people leaving for the day) and their travel through the neighborhood. The quintessential suburb with tree and sidewalk lined streets, porches, and kids playing in the street gave way to the removal of the trees and sidewalks and bigger front lawns so that drivers could see more, resulting in faster and more reckless driving through residential areas.

An Eastern Gateway that provides more parking, expansion space, updated security and improves the experience of Harbor Blvd is more than possible. Why not seek a design that help Disney and helps the other businesses in the area by providing a more vibrant, desirable experience?

 

[mickEblu]

Just because a route exists does not mean it will be used, especially if it is made inconvenient. As someone who has walked over to Denny’s with others I did not know making a similar trip I find it hard to believe this was some bizarre anomaly.

But again going back to a point already well laid out by @FerretAfros, getting into the tit-for-tat of prioritizing this business versus that business is not conducive to developing good design. Urban design is is about the bigger picture, it needs to be able to accommodate a variety of different and changing users. It shouldn’t be about supporting this business or that business, but providing a desirable space for its primary users. That is the real question, should this space support the longer stay tourists, the day tripper or those driving through? The Resort District is actually not that unique in terms of bigger ideas as those same groups of locals, commuters and through traffic are the same different users of all urban spaces. The order of priority given to those groups changes the appropriateness of a design response. Too often this is viewed as a zero sum game where one group must prevail over the others. That is very often the case when commuters or through traffic is prioritized but when placed in the order of locals first, commuters second and through traffic third you can create vibrant, desirable places that work well for all users. Sure, you’re not going to get the the through traffic traveling at 70 mph but in an urban context that was never going to happen no matter how many extra wide lanes you add to the roads.

Some aspects of urban design are counter intuitive (eg. slowing down can be faster) but we’ve also spent the past 70 years stuck in a backwards mindset of prioritizing commuters and through traffic at the expense of the people who actually inhabit and use places. Even the suburbs became more inconvenient and dangerous because they prioritize reverse commuters (people leaving for the day) and their travel through the neighborhood. The quintessential suburb with tree and sidewalk lined streets, porches, and kids playing in the street gave way to the removal of the trees and sidewalks and bigger front lawns so that drivers could see more, resulting in faster and more reckless driving through residential areas.

An Eastern Gateway that provides more parking, expansion space, updated security and improves the experience of Harbor Blvd is more than possible. Why not seek a design that help Disney and helps the other businesses in the area by providing a more vibrant, desirable experience?

If they can find a way to design something that benefits all I’m all for it. The whole thing just seems like a win win so I’m trying to understand what the negatives are. So what about the proposed structure on Harbor, the pedestrian bridge and new expansion at DCA takes away from the people living in the surrounding area? Too much traffic on Harbor?

What would you propose Disney do with the Eastern Gateway that helps the other businesses in the area by providing a more vibrant, desirable experience?

When I read your description ... “An Eastern Gateway that provides more parking, expansion space, updated security and improves the experience of Harbor Blvd” ... it sounds like the proposed eastern gateway is doing just that except for maybe making it less convenient for a tiny percentage of guests who may want to visit those businesses as day guests. So what is the answer? A couple more security check points for the businesses on Harbor instead of having to use the entrance from the new parking structure? Just trying to make sure I understand, the Harbor hotel guests and people on Harbor in general Would still be able to use the new entrance into the park from the new structure right? Would the guests arriving at the new structure not have access to the businesses on Harbor at all or are the businesses just complaining that the path is so inconvenient that people won’t patronize them anymore?

 

[DanielBB8]

I recalled the discussion about pedestrian access to businesses was already resolved. Businesses are not going to stop this no matter what the decision. The new Pixar Pals parking structure already preempted the argument. Businesses won’t have to worry about getting traffic if it doesn’t go to Harbor. So this is really about security from Harbor that includes transportation hub and Harbor businesses and hotels. The parking structure will wait.

 

[J4546]

maybe they will just build the bridge and bus/security hug and the parking structure later? that way they can seal off the area and start CA expansion

 

[lazyboy97o]

If they can find a way to design something that benefits all I’m all for it. The whole thing just seems like a win win so I’m trying to understand what the negatives are. So what about the proposed structure on Harbor, the pedestrian bridge and new expansion at DCA takes away from the people living in the surrounding area? Too much traffic on Harbor?

What would you propose Disney do with the Eastern Gateway that helps the other businesses in the area by providing a more vibrant, desirable experience?

When I read your description ... “An Eastern Gateway that provides more parking, expansion space, updated security and improves the experience of Harbor Blvd” ... it sounds like the proposed eastern gateway is doing just that except for maybe making it less convenient for a tiny percentage of guests who may want to visit those businesses as day guests. So what is the answer? A couple more security check points for the businesses on Harbor instead of having to use the entrance from the new parking structure? Just trying to make sure I understand, the Harbor hotel guests and people on Harbor in general Would still be able to use the new entrance into the park from the new structure right? Would the guests arriving at the new structure not have access to the businesses on Harbor at all or are the businesses just complaining that the path is so inconvenient that people won’t patronize them anymore?

Harbor Blvd doesn’t really have people living there, the “locals” are the tourists staying for several days in the hotels and the businesses along the road patronized by them and day visitors.

The emphasis and requirement to use the bridge is what I would pinpoint as the single biggest problem. It aligns with a problematic larger vision and requiring its use was hostile to the tourists and businesses of the area. The original requirement for all pedestrians to enter from Disney Way required people to walk well out of their way to gain access. Allowing businesses to provide rear access appears To address this issue but it is actually hostile to the businesses, particularly the hotels. No hotel wants people just walking through, so not only would they have to provide access (possibly by removing a revenue generating room) but they’ll also have to secure and monitor the access to keep non-guests from using the hotel as a shortcut. Rear access also removes people from the street which typically comes with a whole host of other problems.

Sidewalk widening (as much as possible), crosswalk improvements, security on Harbor Blvd and a more direct connection between the bridge and Harbor Blvd would all work with Disney’s stated objectives and support the Resort District as more than just a Disney bubble. The bridge should function similar to the PeopleMover from the original master plan, a convenience for day-trippers but not a requirement for all visitors entering from the east. Good urban environments provide options and providing options would be of benefit. If you just want to take the bridge you can. If you’re staying across the street you can more easily walk across. The person who does want to stop at IHOP before driving home can also easily do that. More people easily moving about is also not just good for the local businesses but also Disney who wants Harbor Blvd to look like an inviting, special vacation destination.

 

[LastoneOn]

I would imagine the vast majority of customers of those businesses are from people staying at the hotels on Harbor in which case they would still have easy access no? How many people are driving to Disneyland for the day and stopping at any of those businesses on Harbor? .00001% ?

But Denny's! McDonalds! iHop! Capt. Kidd! Ooooo!!

 

[LastoneOn]

I recalled the discussion about pedestrian access to businesses was already resolved. Businesses are not going to stop this no matter what the decision. The new Pixar Pals parking structure already preempted the argument. Businesses won’t have to worry about getting traffic if it doesn’t go to Harbor. So this is really about security from Harbor that includes transportation hub and Harbor businesses and hotels. The parking structure will wait.

Hadn't ever split the two things up in my mind. Sure why not. There is nothing that says the overpass/security gateway has to terminate in a parking structure. It would improve Harbor for everyone involved. That one guy who hangs out at the cross walk at Capt. Kidd's will get bored, but he'll figure it out.

 

[truecoat]

That really doesn't make sense. If the Gene Autry expansion cuts the strawberry field in half, the land is useless to Disney. The cost of sinking the street and dividing up the property, makes it impossible to make the financials of a third gate work on that site.

If it was very efficient, you could put another park on the north half. Compared to DCA, it's not far off.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The biggest issue is the rule of diminishing returns: building a second park only nets a certain percentage of the original gate, and building a third park will cut into that even more.

Additional gates only doing a small fraction of the business of the first is not a given. EPCOT Center and Tokyo DisneySEA both saw visitation that was near parity compared to Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and where Epcot slid.

If it was very efficient, you could put another park on the north half. Compared to DCA, it's not far off.

View attachment 511628

Disney's California Adventure is not exactly a great layout but it was more efficient since it was able to share facilities with Disneyland. The Third Gate would require a lot of its own facilities. There's also the ever growing size of attractions, even in the 20 years since Disney's California Adventure was built. Toy Story Land and Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge are both physically massive lands with only a handful of offerings.

 

[mickEblu]

There's also the ever growing size of attractions, even in the 20 years since Disney's California Adventure was built. Toy Story Land and Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge are both physically massive lands with only a handful of offerings.

Good, maybe this constraint would force them into being creative again.

 

[truecoat]

Additional gates only doing a small fraction of the business of the first is not a given. EPCOT Center and Tokyo DisneySEA both saw visitation that was near parity compared to Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and where Epcot slid.

Disney's California Adventure is not exactly a great layout but it was more efficient since it was able to share facilities with Disneyland. The Third Gate would require a lot of its own facilities. There's also the ever growing size of attractions, even in the 20 years since Disney's California Adventure was built. Toy Story Land and Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge are both physically massive lands with only a handful of offerings.

True but you could make the backstage area on the southern part with some sort of bridge.

It's really just a comment on it being possible size wise because I don't think it'll happen anytime in the next 25 years if at all.

 

[Robbiem]

I guess other options would be to relocate the hotel district and parts of downtown Disney to the strawberry field and expand the parks or build the third park on the other side of Disneyland drive where the paradise pier and Disneyland hotels are but I think that’s a long shot with DVC on its way, or possibly to make some deal to relocate the convention centre and use that land and the strawberry field but again I think that would be a long shot as I’m guessing location near Disneyland is a key selling point for the centre

 

[DanielBB8]

The Third park doesn’t need to be in Anaheim. The pandemic opened up many possibilities that will be realized in the next few years. First, Disneyland Resort needs to return to pre-pandemic growth. Second, Disney needs to invest in Resort expansion in Downtown Disney and Hotels. The first is more likely than the second. Disney has no faith in opening hotels in Anaheim unlike Orlando and they’re much more cheaper than theme parks. This is evident in how you noticed Orlando has the same number of overall attractions as Anaheim and multiples more hotels than Anaheim.

I expect more theme parks or amusement centers will come up for distress sales. Disney can pick off one in California. Or just kick the can down the road. There’s no rush when every business is in survival mode.