Magic Kingdom to lose ROA, Riverboat, and TSI for Cars Land

[Disney Irish]

You shouldn’t take my word for it. The claims need to stand on their own and the specific claims that have been made are not plausible.

This isn’t because people are lying, it’s because they’re playing a game of telephone and lack the expertise to accurately convey the details they may have heard.

(I’m not claiming special knowledge, but as someone with a long career in STEM, I am qualified to assess many of the specific claims here.)

Well I too have a long career in STEM as well, so I think I'm qualified to assess most claims as well. So I'll take my own judgement over yours, no offense.

 

[Too Many Hats]

Disney does a cost analysis as a part of every decision they make, that is just what corporations do. Call it getting the bean counters involved. Whether you agree with their decision or not based on that cost analysis is up to you. But its part of their decision making process.

Tony Baxter tells a great story about Michael Eisner and the Indiana Jones Adventure. After the accountants explained to Michael why Disney couldn't afford to build the expensive attraction, Eisner thoughtfully replied, "Okay, but here's why we can't afford not to build it."

 

[October82]

Well I too have a long career in STEM as well, so I think I'm qualified to assess most claims as well. So I'll take my own judgement over yours, no offense.

It’s not about what experience either of us may or may not have, it’s about what is plausible. The claims that have been made - as they’ve been made - about the concrete lining of the RoA are not plausible. If those claims change to better reflect whatever the reality is - water quality or issues with the locks used to maintain the water level - then, we would be able to evaluate them on their merits.

 

[Too Many Hats]

And a not insignificant factor is the uniquely intense pressure on WDW guests to maximize their vacation and do all the big cool stuff, exacerbated by FP+ and subsequent skip-the-queue systems, which doesn't leave people feeling like they have time to give to any of the river stuff, especially when combined with on-average longer queues, more punishing weather that leads more people to throw in the towel earlier than they might at DL, and shorter operating hours.

This is very true. The fact that Disneyland is such a "locals" park is the reason why we see so many guests enjoying the treehouse, the riverboat, the castle walkthrough, Mr. Toad, etc.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s not about what experience either of us may or may not have, it’s about what is plausible. The claims that have been made - as they’ve been made - about the concrete lining of the RoA are not plausible. If those claims change to better reflect whatever the reality is - water quality or issues with the locks used to maintain the water level - then, we would be able to evaluate them on their merits.

You can go back and review what was said in the below post, that doesn't read as its just the concrete lining of the river but also the larger interconnected waterways. But you judge for yourself, as I have judged it.

Here's an interesting take by UCF Hospitality professor Bill Zanetti....

It’s hard to see from the art, but there are new ponds, streams, and waterfalls that are being created, so it’s not a total loss of water. There will actually be more kinetic energy with this than there currently is in the area. But as for why…

Remember that the Rivers of America at WDW are connected by a lock to the Seven Seas Lagoon. Major challenges exist to this river system and drainage in the area that need to be accounted for. The foundation of the river isn’t in great shape, nor is it filtered water. The nature of this river surrounding the island system also prevents construction on the islands. To retain any of this river as is would be impossible, as the connection would need to remain near Thunder Mountain to the lock.

One of the key drivers of this re-do was requested by the park management itself… to eliminate dead ends. That can’t be accomplished while retaining the navigable river system. So you have an aging river basin in dire need of resurfacing, logistical nightmares to improve the islands, and dead end pathways on two sides. Plus access must be created to get to the other side of the river systems for any expansion.

I can tell you that countless rides were taken on the riverboat by key people involved in this decision and it was not taken lightly. They know they have to blow everyone out of the water with what gets built on the site. (Pun intended) It still makes sense.

Cars being the IP was selected for WDI by others. Cars makes ridiculous financial and demographic sense. It sells merchandise like no other franchise, it will eventually allow for the removal of the Tomorrowland Speedway on the other side of the park to free up more valuable real estate in the park, it appeals to the Floridian demographic, and it appeals to families (not single millennials, if they were going for that demographic they would have themed the entire area to A Goofy Movie). Cars also is a friendly story that will provide the friendly alternative to the scary Villains land beyond.

How to fit Cars into the region is actually very real, as JL did concepts for the original films going through places like Yellowstone, but were never realized (though the adjacent franchise, Planes Fire & Rescue does take place in a Yellowstone-like national park). There is a lot more to this concept and I think you’ll see some more Cars related IP coming around the bend that will even cement how it makes logical sense being there. This concept is adjacent to National Parks (not inside one) and it is very pretty. I do have doubts about the reliability of it being outdoors in Florida, but that’s besides the point here.

The aesthetics of the land are based on the Grizzly Peak Recreation Area in DCA. (Piston Peak instead of Grizzly Peak) Obviously there are some aesthetic differences and it’s a Cars ride instead of a rapids ride, but that’s a product of the MK having Tiana’s so close and the IP requirement set above.

In the end, there was no way to save the existing river system. The new lands have major elevation changes that can’t be accomplished without altering the river, and the reality is that they have an obligation to push for more capacity in the park, even if it means at the cost of something so big. It will be tough to see for the next 5-10 years, but I’ve been assured it will all be worth it, and the new water features will be much cleaner and feel a lot more fun.

I hope that explains a lot of the decision making that went into this. Happy to answer a few other questions if you still have them (on twitter).

 

[October82]

You can go back and review what was said in the below post, that doesn't read as its just the concrete lining of the river but also the larger interconnected waterways. But you judge for yourself, as I have judged it.

It’s not judgement that it’s at issue - it’s that the claims, repeated or not, are not plausible. The RoA isn’t a complicated structural system and vague “issues with the larger interconnected waterways” isn’t a specific enough statement to evaluate.

What is almost certainly meant by this is that there are operational costs associated with maintaining the water quality of the RoA as compared to the Seven Seas Lagoon. If I had to speculate, I would guess that conflating issues with the concrete lining of the RoA with the costs of maintaining water quality happens because one of the main purposes of the lining is water quality.

I know there’s a lot of people who want to think of Disney as a company that makes rational decisions based on engineering or design practicalities. There is no reason to believe that is the case here.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s not judgement that it’s at issue - it’s that the claims, repeated or not, are not plausible. The RoA isn’t a complicated structural system and vague “issues with the larger interconnected waterways” isn’t a specific enough statement to evaluate.

What is almost certainly meant by this is that there are operational costs associated with maintaining the water quality of the RoA as compared to the Seven Seas Lagoon. If I had to speculate, I would guess that conflating issues with the concrete lining of the RoA with the costs of maintaining water quality happens because one of the main purposes of the lining is water quality.

I know there’s a lot of people who want to think of Disney as a company that makes rational decisions based on engineering or design practicalities. There is no reason to believe that is the case here.

I think Disney makes all sorts of decisions for all sorts of reasons. To me though its plausible that the issues with the waterways was part of that decision. To what extent I cannot say, but it is plausible that it was part of the decision.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

You can go back and review what was said in the below post, that doesn't read as its just the concrete lining of the river but also the larger interconnected waterways.

That whole post is a bunch of nonsense written to impress his students - all of whom are wasting money on a degree in “hospitality.”

 

[Disney Irish]

That whole post is a bunch of nonsense written to impress his students - all of whom are wasting money on a degree in “hospitality.”

So you don't think that hospitality workers should get an education in the field they are working, especially hospitality management?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

So you don't think that hospitality workers should get an education in the field they are working, especially hospitality management?

Nope. At Disney, still known to be a leader in the industry- what level of management even requires a degree?

Of course… this is the same state with Full Sail University haha

 

[Disney Irish]

Nope. At Disney, still known to be a leader in the industry- what level of management even requires a degree?

Of course… this is the same state with Full Sail University haha

Strawman argument, just because many Disney positions doesn't require a degree doesn't mean its not a valid program. And just FYI its been seen as a valid degree program at many colleges since 1922.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Strawman argument, just because many Disney positions doesn't require a degree doesn't mean its not a valid program. And just FYI its been seen as a valid degree program at many colleges since 1922.

Don’t want to reply… just yell “strawman” - I’ve seen that a lot lately in political circles.

Which this is of course mimicking - “conservatives” (theme park speaking) want the River to stay

“Liberals” (again just theme park speaking) want the river to go.

And the moderates would like a compromise where everyone wins.

Haha

 

[Disney Irish]

Don’t want to reply… just yell “strawman” - I’ve seen that a lot lately in political circles.

Which this is of course mimicking - “conservatives” (theme park speaking) want the River to stay

“Liberals” (again just theme park speaking) want the river to go.

And the moderates would like a compromise where everyone wins.

Haha

Funny, but still doesn't change things. Just because some Disney management positions don't require degrees doesn't mean its not a valid degree program. And it really doesn't mean that any professor from that same program was just spouting some nonsense.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

That whole post is a bunch of nonsense written to impress his students - all of whom are wasting money on a degree in “hospitality.”

My alma mater is big on hospitality and, from what I’ve seen, does it pretty well. Surely you are an authority or have some authoritative knowledge on why all of that doesn’t count?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

My alma mater is big on hospitality and, from what I’ve seen, does it pretty well. Surely you are an authority or have some authoritative knowledge on why all of that doesn’t count?

Unlike many pretend insiders on this and other sites - I’m an authority on nothing and my crystal ball is sadly out of order.

 

[John park hopper]

Disney was once a theme park now it is an amusement park and I am not one bit amused by this current announcement.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Unlike many pretend insiders on this and other sites - I’m an authority on nothing and my crystal ball is sadly out of order.

That's OK, TWDC has no idea what its doing either...

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Well I too have a long career in STEM as well, so I think I'm qualified to assess most claims as well. So I'll take my own judgement over yours, no offense.

I may not have a STEM background but I can say that whether or not the river can be salvaged, the fact is every extra dollar in maintenance costs that goes to the ROA complex is a dollar “wasted” when churned through a modern MBA mindset which working in corporate America I can help recreate.

Assuming a modern corporate KPI checklist using following metrics, spending maintenance costs to maintain “free” RoA attractions is actually a problem and one any corporate business analyst would likely balk at. The problem is whether this is the right way to run a theme park… but it’s definitely predictable.

Metrics like:
- increasing per capita, per person spending when individuals are in the park. This is driven by LL sales and food/merch. Massive fail. Because the RoA draws people away from spending money its existence actually hurts this metric. In fact even just mothballing it would at least push people to be forced to go back to Main Street to eat/shop or go to other IP based attractions.
- Optimizing Disney+ and existing Disney licensed IP synergies. The RoA fails here as well. There is really nothing on D+ that is tied to Tom Sawyer directly and it’s not a known franchise.
- Promoting the marketability of the parks segment - issue here is corporate sees “new” and “recognizable IP” as more marketable, goes with the last One.
- Increasing on property sales for deluxe resort rooms and amenities; including DVC - Fail here too. Why would I go to the hotel to get some R&R when I can just go unwind at RoA for an hour or 2? Again - in TDO’s mind - you want a “chill” place to unwind - that’s not covered in your standard admission, you should pay extra. Also deluxe resorts sell lightning land reservations which brings me back to our first point.
- Making the parks more safe and inclusive - This is a lesser direct risk since I’m not sure the properties are as problematic as they are considered “non-contemporary”. However safety means large bodies of water and play structures are legal liabilities, including OSHA, ADA, etc. Inclusive means properties that are not perceived as nationalistic and fit generic themes.

 

[Disney Irish]

I may not have a STEM background but I can say that whether or not the river can be salvaged, the fact is every extra dollar in maintenance costs that goes to the ROA complex is a dollar “wasted” when churned through a modern MBA mindset which working in corporate America I can help recreate.

Assuming a modern corporate KPI checklist using following metrics, spending maintenance costs to maintain “free” RoA attractions is actually a problem and one any corporate business analyst would likely balk at. The problem is whether this is the right way to run a theme park… but it’s definitely predictable.

Metrics like:
- increasing per capita, per person spending when individuals are in the park. This is driven by LL sales and food/merch. Massive fail. Because the RoA draws people away from spending money its existence actually hurts this metric. In fact even just mothballing it would at least push people to be forced to go back to Main Street to eat/shop or go to other IP based attractions.
- Optimizing Disney+ and existing Disney licensed IP synergies. The RoA fails here as well. There is really nothing on D+ that is tied to Tom Sawyer directly and it’s not a known franchise.
- Promoting the marketability of the parks segment - issue here is corporate sees “new” and “recognizable IP” as more marketable, goes with the last One.
- Increasing on property sales for deluxe resort rooms and amenities; including DVC - Fail here too. Why would I go to the hotel to get some R&R when I can just go unwind at RoA for an hour or 2? Again - in TDO’s mind - you want a “chill” place to unwind - that’s not covered in your standard admission, you should pay extra. Also deluxe resorts sell lightning land reservations which brings me back to our first point.
- Making the parks more safe and inclusive - This is a lesser direct risk since I’m not sure the properties are as problematic as they are considered “non-contemporary”. However safety means large bodies of water and play structures are legal liabilities, including OSHA, ADA, etc. Inclusive means properties that are not perceived as nationalistic and fit generic themes.

Don't talk to me about KPIs, I have nightmares from having to review and keep up with KPIs for my team.

 

[PiratesMansion]

This is very true. The fact that Disneyland is such a "locals" park is the reason why we see so many guests enjoying the treehouse, the riverboat, the castle walkthrough, Mr. Toad, etc.

That, and there are people internally who value Disneyland's history.

By contrast, people internally look at Magic Kingdom as either an ATM or a failed attempt to emulate Disneyland that must be corrected.

It's a recipe written to ensure that practically anything there could be seen as disposable.