Main Street U.S.A. hub redevelopment at the Magic Kingdom

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
This is so far removed from the point I was making.

Can I go back to my original comment?

I didn't say that there should or shouldn't be trees. I simply commented that most people walking into the park aren't thinking to themselves, "The Castle would look so much better with trees in the Hub." And I still think that's true.

Apparently, everyone else disagrees and that's cool.
And just because people do not actively think it does not make it a sound basis for decision making. There are other ways the lack of trees does go noticed.
 

articos

Well-Known Member
Yes, but I don't think they predicted those kinds of crowds when the hub was first designed. ;)
Not even close, and the answer was, well, we hate to do it, but we'll close the gates as to not provide a bad guest experience.

That said, this project is to fix the fact the Hub was not designed for today's crowds and correct mistakes that have taken away much of the original design intent and feel.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Not even close, and the answer was, well, we hate to do it, but we'll close the gates as to not provide a bad guest experience.

That said, this project is to fix the fact the Hub was not designed for today's crowds and correct mistakes that have taken away much of the original design intent and feel.
It seems path widening has become an increased focus at MK and DAK (and I assume DHS as that changes). Is this an admission by Disney that the parks are not in a mature state and can anticipate greater guest numbers than what we've seen to date? Animal Kingdom especially is prepping for many more thousands of guests to visit that park per day. Are we going to see infrastructure changes in 2015 and 2016 that prep for the new attractions coming in the latter half of the decade? Are we going to see things like the parking issues at DHS addressed?
 

SnarkyMonkey

Well-Known Member
And just because people do not actively think it does not make it a sound basis for decision making. There are other ways the lack of trees does go noticed.

I am not arguing with you! Why do I kept getting quoted in this argument? I agreed that it looked better with the trees. I just said I hadn't noticed the difference until someone posted the before and after photos.
 

Eric1955

Well-Known Member
While I do understand what you are saying because it is the little details that I too love, I think sometimes there has to be compromises. I think Disney knows that scaling back on trees does not impact the experience for most guests and allows for the nighttime entertainment to be more enjoyable. So, I can understand them making the decision. I'm not sure Disney should make decisions based on what only a few people will notice, kwim?

There is no reason Disney can't have fantastic nighttime entertainment and trees in the hub. The Magic Kingdom did have fireworks before the trees came down.

I've said it before and will say it again. What makes Disney, Disney is the sum total of 1000's of details each of which the average guest would probably never notice the absence of , but take away enough of them and the parks will loose what has made them so great.

Exactly right!
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I am not arguing with you! Why do I kept getting quoted in this argument? I agreed that it looked better with the trees. I just said I hadn't noticed the difference until someone posted the before and after photos.
The quote feature is not limited in use to arguments. You made the comments about it not being an issue because people do not notice and people disagree.
 

articos

Well-Known Member
It seems path widening has become an increased focus at MK and DAK (and I assume DHS as that changes). Is this an admission by Disney that the parks are not in a mature state and can anticipate greater guest numbers than what we've seen to date? Animal Kingdom especially is prepping for many more thousands of guests to visit that park per day. Are we going to see infrastructure changes in 2015 and 2016 that prep for the new attractions coming in the latter half of the decade? Are we going to see things like the parking issues at DHS addressed?
I don't know it's an admission of something - more just adjusting the parks to today's needs. I would agree the parks/FL property have been neglected until recently, and I'm happy there's a ton of work being done that's long overdue, both making changes that are needed and fixing things that have been taken away/changed over the years. Are we going to see more to come? I'd say it's a good bet. Regarding DHS parking, as DHS changes, I'd expect changes to this as well.
 

Gabe1

Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
I've said it before and will say it again. What makes Disney, Disney is the sum total of 1000's of details each of which the average guest would probably never notice the absence of , but take away enough of them and the parks will loose what has made them so great.

Amen.

Is it just the photos or do those paths look rather narrow?
 

Sage of Time

Well-Known Member
The redesigned hub won't reclaim the glory days of early 90s WDW, but it will be beautiful. This is one thing Phil Holmes can't ruin for the MK.

DL's "lushly planted hub" would be better if it weren't packed with too many passholders every single afternoon.
Well said. I'm not expecting to see the WDW of my youth... but I'm certainly expecting to see something far greater than we have now. I mean, we had a concrete wasteland from 2003 onwards.

And LOL. I last visited DL during the D23 Expo and it was packed with locals. Not a terrible thing, seeing how well DL handles capacity... ...but I couldn't help thinking how much quieter it would be if all the locals went home.

That said, still better than the WDW crowd of uninitiated tourists. "IS THIS FAST TRACK!?"
 

SnarkyMonkey

Well-Known Member
The quote feature is not limited in use to arguments. You made the comments about it not being an issue because people do not notice and people disagree.

I think we are all on the same page. I agree that they should add back the trees if at all possible.
 
Last edited:

Bryansworld

Active Member
I see both sides of things. Guests want to see the castle for the shows and fireworks. There are A LOT of guests in the Magic Kingdom. More space is needed for their viewing pleasure. However, Trees make the park look and feel better (like a park and not just concrete). Lets hope they plant trees on the outskirts of the new hub. We can hope and dream that there is a compromise of viewing and beauty/comfort. The Water features and landscaping will be an improvement to the current construction mess that is there now. That is a fact. :)
 

donsullivan

Premium Member
Does anyone know why the moat has been drained again? When I was there Saturday it had been almost completed drained much like when they first started. My initial guess is that they are preparing to take out the earthen damns that have been protecting the construction area but that is just a guess. We are only a few weeks ago from opening the southern section of the project so it seems to make sense they would be ready to make that transition.
 

ParksAndPixels

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Does anyone know why the moat has been drained again? When I was there Saturday it had been almost completed drained much like when they first started. My initial guess is that they are preparing to take out the earthen damns that have been protecting the construction area but that is just a guess. We are only a few weeks ago from opening the southern section of the project so it seems to make sense they would be ready to make that transition.

Very likely, they will remove dams and clear & clean the moat before refilling. Whether this is only reason I don't know but it's likely
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom