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

[Martiyoman]

Its pretty simple, you seem very happy to be stepped on and claim "oh lol who cares" and at same time telling someone who DOES NOT LIKE to be stepped on to "lol you're not that important".

There are people who dont like to be stepped on or abused you know. And they try what they can to prevent so.
Even if that includes making "noise". Thats what activists or interested persons do.

Sad that thanks to the current world media brainwashing.. being an activist (or someone who doesn't follow the "flow" set by mega corporations) is shunned by their fellow citizens instead of cheered at.



I think the issue currently we see is.. people DO NOT CARE about the future or even 10 years further.

Companies used to invest to LIVE and THRIVE.

Now...Since the rise of the wall street creed.. they want the money NOW, even if it collapses tomorrow in a huge fiery ball of fire a la Enron or Worldcom or many other companies that fell in the shockwave.
to resume.. this changed the BUILD AND MAINTAIN to RISK AND GAMBLE.

For them its easier to invest.. make it grow.. get the company dry and get out as soon there is the minimum danger. For them its better to see a company drop thousands of employees on restructure than actually invest for future.

As a shareholder he might have the opportunity to "pull out" in time. But I dont think there will be much warnings like those in the top position do.

Right now, we only have the image of TWDC as a single giant unit. But who knows if P&R in WDW is doing perfect as they claim. We do not have real numbers. Even @ParentsOf4 uses proyections.

Will Shangai be the "umbrella" if WDW goes to the trash? what if a quake hits in California and all the money went to Shangai and "concealed" by the Chinese gov?
Would it still be happy to do use most money on repurchases and gambling the wall street than build cash for stability?

I'm no economic expert, but current guys seem to favour gamble for quick buck than medium buck for long term stability.

Actually, I don't feel stepped on. As I said, it's my choice to either go to WDW or stay home.
What's silly, in my mind, is the people who do feel stepped on by a fortune 500 company. Again, they're not forcing you. If you buy into it, then it's your choice to be 'stepped on.'
And you talk about activism, and being shunned, but good god man this is Disney world. There are actual, real live activists in the world who are actually shunned for their heritage, or upbringing, or who theyre attracted to or any number of other infinitely more important things than the fact that you don't like the lack of trees in the hub. Don't play the victim. It's unbecoming, even for someone like yourself.

 

[ford91exploder]

Through all our discussions on the topic, you know I'm all about long term sustainability. Long term profits. Long term investments meant to keep Disney as the preeminent family entertainment company in the world.

I just feel their lack of CAPEX and ignoring of Florida for years is a problem. If - God forbid - Another terrorist attack causes the tourism market to come to a screeching halt, Disney has a giant problem in Florida. Their business has moved to a model that's based on first time guests and seeming apathetic towards return business.

I'm all for them making a profit but I'm also all for them treating their front line employees right. I'm all for them being good corporate neighbors in Central Florida. I don't see them doing either anymore.

So as deal with diminishing returns? I think you invest. You give people reasons to return. You make them feel valued and that they got a great deal for their money. Disney is in the business of selling the experience and you do that (or what they taught me when I went through traditions) is to treat every guest as if they're someone special.

Summed up? It's how they use the money they make that I question. The simplton statements of "it's a business" lack the nuances of the complexities that surround the Walt Disney World Resort. It's more than profit margin - it's what they do with those profits.

This exactly, What happens if the foreign 'one and done' supply of tourists dries up?, WDW now has a huge problem because they alienated their US customer base. Because I'm the local Disney 'expert' people ask me AFTER their FIRST trips WHY I keep going back because they had a 'Meh experience, It was crowded, getting on rides was hard could not change my food plans...

That I think is the biggest problem with WDW now too much emphasis on sucking wallets dry rather than giving people an amazing experience which keeps them coming back without need to resort to gimmicks like 'Free Dining'

 

[PhotoDave219]

There has been a lot of general statements of Disney not doing enough with their capital at WDW. Please share what you would like them to do with it. As far as I can see they are making a ton of investment to the property. They have several major projects currently under construction and several coming down the pipe.

No.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Through all our discussions on the topic, you know I'm all about long term sustainability. Long term profits. Long term investments meant to keep Disney as the preeminent family entertainment company in the world.

I just feel their lack of CAPEX and ignoring of Florida for years is a problem. If - God forbid - Another terrorist attack causes the tourism market to come to a screeching halt, Disney has a giant problem in Florida. Their business has moved to a model that's based on first time guests and seeming apathetic towards return business.

I'm all for them making a profit but I'm also all for them treating their front line employees right. I'm all for them being good corporate neighbors in Central Florida. I don't see them doing either anymore.

So as deal with diminishing returns? I think you invest. You give people reasons to return. You make them feel valued and that they got a great deal for their money. Disney is in the business of selling the experience and you do that (or what they taught me when I went through traditions) is to treat every guest as if they're someone special.

Summed up? It's how they use the money they make that I question. The simplton statements of "it's a business" lack the nuances of the complexities that surround the Walt Disney World Resort. It's more than profit margin - it's what they do with those profits.

I see your point about treating the front line employee's better. That is a long term investment, no doubt, and they do seem to be remiss in that area. But, I still see that as a bigger picture. Those people are not being held there at gunpoint. They can improve their plight, as I suspect you have. I believe that there are still lines of people trying to get a "front line" job there. Again, supply and demand enters the picture. As long as that continues, just like as long as people keep showing up at the ticket booths, not much is going to change.

When it comes to CAPEX, the problem that I see is that they already have more to do and see in one location then any other destination in the world. They have spent billions on CAPEX, just not lately (although the do seem to be changing that, if they ever get off their butts and actually get it going). How much can you throw in there when you already are the biggest. How does one discount the fact that there are still millions and millions of people who have never even seen what is there now, much less care about anything new. Those, I believe, are the questions they ask themselves when it comes to investing more. Just because I would like to see new things because I have seen all of the present stuff over 32 years, doesn't mean that investing more will insure continued success. Especially if the investment is not creating the needed return.

I also think about how much money it costs to even underpay the CM's. What is there now, about 80K CM's onsite? If that number is true and even if they all only work 20 hours per week, a $1.00 per hour would increase the current amounts by $83,200,000 per year (not counting matching government requirements). The problem there is that $1.00 per hour really isn't enough to help the CM's financially. If you needed to do that it would, at the very least multiply that number by 4, at the very least! This is the one time that Walt was wrong. There is no blessing of size.

There are simplifications in argument from both sides. However, I don't see the appeal of Disney declining, at least in my lifetime. It has a very strong psychological hold on the the public and like they say in the Master Card ads.... that's Priceless!

EDIT: I forgot to include the surrounding area of central Florida. I don't think Disney owes them anything. The place would still be a cow pasture if not for Disney. There would be no economy, much less one that generates the kind of money that the "Florida Project" has. It is a mess, but, it is a profitable mess for the area.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I see your point about treating the front line employee's better. That is a long term investment, no doubt, and they do seem to be remiss in that area. But, I still see that as a bigger picture. Those people are not being held there at gunpoint. They can improve their plight, as I suspect you have. I believe that there are still lines of people trying to get a "front line" job there. Again, supply and demand enters the picture. As long as that continues, just like as long as people keep showing up at the ticket booths, not much is going to change.

When it comes to CAPEX, the problem that I see is that they already have more to do and see in one location then any other destination in the world. They have spent billions on CAPEX, just not lately (although the do seem to be changing that, if they ever get off their butts and actually get it going). How much can you throw in there when you already are the biggest. How does one discount the fact that there are still millions and millions of people who have never even seen what is there now, much less care about anything new. Those, I believe, are the questions they ask themselves when it comes to investing more. Just because I would like to see new things because I have seen all of the present stuff over 32 years, doesn't mean that investing more will insure continued success. Especially if the investment is not creating the needed return.

I also think about how much money it costs to even underpay the CM's. What is there now, about 80K CM's onsite? If that number is true and even if they all only work 20 hours per week, a $1.00 per hour would increase the current amounts by $83,200,000 per year (not counting matching government requirements). The problem there is that $1.00 per hour really isn't enough to help the CM's financially. If you needed to do that it would, at the very least multiply that number by 4, at the very least! This is the one time that Walt was wrong. There is no blessing of size.

There are simplifications in argument from both sides. However, I don't see the appeal of Disney declining, at least in my lifetime. It has a very strong psychological hold on the the public and like they say in the Master Card ads.... that's Priceless!

EDIT: I forgot to include the surrounding area of central Florida. I don't think Disney owes them anything. The place would still be a cow pasture if not for Disney. There would be no economy, much less one that generates the kind of money that the "Florida Project" has. It is a mess, but, it is a profitable mess for the area.

That profitable mess doesn't trickle down, that's my problem there.

I see your point, why invest when you're still double the size of your closest rival? I have no answer to that beyond attracting new & returning business.

Beats offering discounts/free dining IMO.

 

[Cesar R M]

Actually, I don't feel stepped on. As I said, it's my choice to either go to WDW or stay home.
What's silly, in my mind, is the people who do feel stepped on by a fortune 500 company. Again, they're not forcing you. If you buy into it, then it's your choice to be 'stepped on.'
And you talk about activism, and being shunned, but good god man this is Disney world. There are actual, real live activists in the world who are actually shunned for their heritage, or upbringing, or who theyre attracted to or any number of other infinitely more important things than the fact that you don't like the lack of trees in the hub. Don't play the victim. It's unbecoming, even for someone like yourself.

another "the point is here.. you are all far away in the other side"

 

[Cesar R M]

How does one discount the fact that there are still millions and millions of people who have never even seen what is there now, much less care about anything new.

Ahem, Universal Orlando is a fine example.

 

[Martiyoman]

another "the point is here.. you hare all the other way"

Smooth, excellent deflection. Congratulations. Glad you could figure it out.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Ahem, Universal Orlando is a fine example.

Expanding from small to larger is an easy thing to do. Expanding from enormous to even bigger, requires some careful consideration. Apples and oranges my friend.

 

[Brian]

So, umm... how about those turrets, eh?

 

[Bolt]

So umm... how about those turrets, eh?

Did the left one go under a larger scrim now?

 

[DDLand]

Primarily for safety, which could be turned into an experience thing.

The 40th anniversary brought it home how close they came to guests being seriously injured. The night the crowds spilled over the grass and flower beds. The night CMs were pulled out of the guest areas when they were overwhelmed. The night it was an uncontrolled free for all. The night it was more than just gridlocked. For a few minutes it was dangerous.

The night the hub broke.

Whoa, hadn't ever heard about this. That sounds scary.

 

[SpaceMountain75]

So, umm... how about those turrets, eh?

Ah yes, the hub. The topic.

 

[Cesar R M]

Expanding from small to larger is an easy thing to do. Expanding from enormous to even bigger, requires some careful consideration. Apples and oranges my friend.

noone is saying enormous expansions.
Disney took eons to attempt to fix the issues in AKL for example, it took them a big hit (Potter) to finally make them move.
What do you tell me on the state of many attractions that are in a "falling apart" like pirates (or were until very few ago, like Splash Mountain)?



anyway my whole point on this conversation:

Pixie dusters will never understand that change doesn't just drop from the heavens by itself.
Just "waiting" and "hope for the best" aren't real solutions if the company itself doesn't want to change for the better.

Being a conformist and refusing to take a voice of what's wrong will do even worse to ANYTHING (this is true from a small business to a multinational company). .
Theres why WDW management as a very skewed view of the visitors opinion and general aspect. (that and the habit of low management to skew surveys to make them all say "everything is pure flowers and roses, no bad opinions here" are not helping)

The mantra of many pixie dusters of "then stop buying" is pretty unhelpful in this case as well. Because; that is akin of "giving up" on something you really love.

 

[DDLand]

noone is saying enormous expansions.
Disney took eons to attempt to fix the issues in AKL for example, it took them a big hit (Potter) to finally make them move.
What do you tell me on the state of many attractions that are in a "falling apart" like pirates (or were until very few ago, like Splash Mountain)?



anyway my whole point on this conversation:

Pixie dusters will never understand that change doesn't just drop from the heavens by itself.
Just "waiting" and "hope for the best" aren't real solutions if the company itself doesn't want to change for the better.

Being a conformist and refusing to take a voice of what's wrong will do even worse to ANYTHING (this is true from a small business to a multinational company). .
Theres why WDW management as a very skewed view of the visitors opinion and general aspect. (that and the habit of low management to skew surveys to make them all say "everything is pure flowers and roses, no bad opinions here" are not helping)

The mantra of many pixie dusters of "then stop buying" is pretty unhelpful in this case as well. Because; that is akin of "giving up" on something you really love.

The rising attendance may also skew their view of visitor opinion too...

 

[Cesar R M]

The rising attendance may also skew their view of visitor opinion too...

The status of WDW as a "once in a lifetime MUST DO at all costs" helps that.

still, I have seen a lot of "discounted" packages. And all of them are on hotels outside the WDW bubble.

 

[LL2WDW]

Did the left one go under a larger scrim now?

Yes, it has. The new scrim has a circumference large enough to allow workers to finish the detail on the turret, and install the electrical, etc. (my non-construction expert guess, that is)

They're quite large in person, but not so large as to pull focus away from the castle.

 

[Sage of Time]

Can we please get off the economics/guest services talk and save that for another spirited thread and keep this one focused on the hub?

Primarily for safety, which could be turned into an experience thing.

The 40th anniversary brought it home how close they came to guests being seriously injured. The night the crowds spilled over the grass and flower beds. The night CMs were pulled out of the guest areas when they were overwhelmed. The night it was an uncontrolled free for all. The night it was more than just gridlocked. For a few minutes it was dangerous.

The night the hub broke.

I wonder if that was the last straw before they OK'd this project. Do you know when they started looking at new plans for the Hub?

So, umm... how about those turrets, eh?

The scale looks great. Very happy that they aren't too large.

 

[Goofyernmost]

noone is saying enormous expansions.
Disney took eons to attempt to fix the issues in AKL for example, it took them a big hit (Potter) to finally make them move.
What do you tell me on the state of many attractions that are in a "falling apart" like pirates (or were until very few ago, like Splash Mountain)?



anyway my whole point on this conversation:

Pixie dusters will never understand that change doesn't just drop from the heavens by itself.
Just "waiting" and "hope for the best" aren't real solutions if the company itself doesn't want to change for the better.

Being a conformist and refusing to take a voice of what's wrong will do even worse to ANYTHING (this is true from a small business to a multinational company). .
Theres why WDW management as a very skewed view of the visitors opinion and general aspect. (that and the habit of low management to skew surveys to make them all say "everything is pure flowers and roses, no bad opinions here" are not helping)

The mantra of many pixie dusters of "then stop buying" is pretty unhelpful in this case as well. Because; that is akin of "giving up" on something you really love.

Cesar, there are two kinds of conformists. Those that conform to one theory and those that conform to a different one. We are both conformists. We are both pixie dusters in a sense. I am a realist pixie duster in that I don't live in constant fantasy about how things just are supposed to magically happen. You and your fellow conformists think that just because you want to see something happen, then places like Disney owes it to you to do that.

Another poster very clearly pointed out that all of us make a constant choice to give our hard earned money to Disney in exchange for being entertained. On a personal level, I also see many things that I wish were different, but, I refuse to allow that to alter my enjoyment of the place or even to think that I have the ability to know just what would make Disney a long term success. The public is way to fickle to be able to know what will make a difference 10 years down the road.

In the last few posts in this thread you have freely decided that labeling is the way to go. Shame us into expressing that you are correct. I have another definition for both conformist and pixie dusters. I have just expressed my opinion about the conforming that is prevalent on both sides. Now for Pixie Dusters. In my definition Pixie Dusters are those that expect the improbable, complain when things change, complain when things don't change, are unable to accept reality and enjoy what is given yet continue to pump money into the system all the while talking about how they get nothing in return.

I enjoy WDW for a variety of reasons. I see WDW much differently then you do, apparently. Perhaps these 67 year old eyes have weakened to the point that I don't see miniscule points and only focus on what is in my face. By god, there is a lot there that is absolutely breathtaking if we aren't focused on a 40 year old ride that needs and is scheduled for refurb., they are clearly visible.

So continue to define Conformist and Pixie Duster your way. It only matters to you. I don't define them the same and therefore am oblivious to your perceived put down.

 

[Cesar R M]

Cesar, there are two kinds of conformists. Those that conform to one theory and those that conform to a different one. We are both conformists. We are both pixie dusters in a sense. I am a realist pixie duster in that I don't live in constant fantasy about how things just are supposed to magically happen. You and your fellow conformists think that just because you want to see something happen, then places like Disney owes it to you to do that.

Another poster very clearly pointed out that all of us make a constant choice to give our hard earned money to Disney in exchange for being entertained. On a personal level, I also see many things that I wish were different, but, I refuse to allow that to alter my enjoyment of the place or even to think that I have the ability to know just what would make Disney a long term success. The public is way to fickle to be able to know what will make a difference 10 years down the road.

In the last few posts in this thread you have freely decided that labeling is the way to go. Shame us into expressing that you are correct. I have another definition for both conformist and pixie dusters. I have just expressed my opinion about the conforming that is prevalent on both sides. Now for Pixie Dusters. In my definition Pixie Dusters are those that expect the improbable, complain when things change, complain when things don't change, are unable to accept reality and enjoy what is given yet continue to pump money into the system all the while talking about how they get nothing in return.

I enjoy WDW for a variety of reasons. I see WDW much differently then you do, apparently. Perhaps these 67 year old eyes have weakened to the point that I don't see miniscule points and only focus on what is in my face. By god, there is a lot there that is absolutely breathtaking if we aren't focused on a 40 year old ride that needs and is scheduled for refurb., they are clearly visible.

So continue to define Conformist and Pixie Duster your way. It only matters to you. I don't define them the same and therefore am oblivious to your perceived put down.

please tell me where I said they owe me :>

also you're wrong in the last pixie duster remark (thats after reading what pixie duster means for many of the folks in here).
Imho, pixie dusters usually accept everything because "disney say so and cant do wrong".
They will also defend disney like their life depended on it.

old fans are usually the ones who dont like the change.
But tell me, who wants a change something that was good to something that looks bad or worse than what it was before?
The poly is a fine example. Would you cut down an amazing water feature and add a holiday inn tiny feature? that is not plussing, that is minussing.

Someone posted how the "pizza huts" also ruined the water view.
Would you call that "good change" enough to ignore it completely and refuse to mention your concerns?


*edit*
Upon rereading I notice there seems to be very different views on what means what (definition wise) regarding the types of people that usually follow all Disney stuff.
But I disagree that only dividing it in "conformists" and "pixie dusters".
Note that the definition I made in my mind, was based on what the spirited threads are. Which I am no surprised you disagree, because you tend to disagree a lot with @WDW1974 on almost everything.

So for this.. In my opinion:

They need to be divided in 2 big branches:those who benefit for Disney as in economical way, and those who dont.

For example, people who have stock or own a travel company that depends on Disney to survive.. is one of the first.

Pixie Dusters (who like everything disney) are probably in the second. As they do not benefit directly on how well disney does $$.

Lifestylers are different are the same but in the other side of the branch, they are bloggers, tour operators or people who MUST EAT all Disney to continue their services or obtain benefits. but they benefit from Disney directly, thus they are in the first again.

We then have the doom and glomers, who still go to Disney despite disagreeing and refusing ANY change or Blast when there isn't any change.

Then we have the Old fans who sit in the second camp and still love and hope Disney gets better.