News Monster Inc Land Coming to Disney's Hollywood Studios

[wannabeBelle]

The single greatest problem with the park is its lack of capacity. It needs significantly more before you should even consider replacing facilities that are still be used.

1000% this!!! Marie

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

The single greatest problem with the park is its lack of capacity. It needs significantly more before you should even consider replacing facilities that are still be used.

I hear you my only question is: where?

As far as I can see, Hollywood Studios is probably the most landlocked park out of the current 4.
Theres a few places you can go but a lot of it is backstage that needs to be moved somewhere and thats not cheap either.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The single greatest problem with the park is its lack of capacity. It needs significantly more before you should even consider replacing facilities that are still be used.

I completely agree with this.

Part of the issue here though is we are assuming that Disney is acting differently (i.e. replacing Muppet*Vision instead of Animation Courtyard). When big decisions are made in any capacity (life, theme parks, etc) there's a practical side and an emotional side.

The emotional side here is that we don't want to see Muppet*Vision go away. In this case, you could also argue that removing Muppet*Vision is also an impractical solution and it's why we are all saying that putting it in Animation Courtyard makes more sense.

With all that said, if the choice is Muppets going away, I firmly hope that there is another shoe to drop with Animation Courtyard that would further address the capacity issues.

 

[erasure fan1]

The single greatest problem with the park is its lack of capacity. It needs significantly more before you should even consider replacing facilities that are still be used.

An argument I see a bunch around here is, they need those other expansion pads for future use. As you said, and I have said, and many others have said. The resort needs capacity and using the empty space that just sits there, would be the answer. I see a road map where everything they announced, could be built as extra capacity not replacements. Once you have built out capacity to where it needs to be, then we can talk about replacing existing attractions.

 

[doctornick]

I hear you my only question is: where?

As far as I can see, Hollywood Studios is probably the most landlocked park out of the current 4.
Theres a few places you can go but a lot of it is backstage that needs to be moved somewhere and thats not cheap either.

I have tried to mark below areas that are specifically considered expansion pads (or backstage areas that can be moved). It's not even including the possibility of expanding into the current parking lots, which was considered in the past. A couple of these would likely only be used if they were replacing the adjacent structures (e.g. BatB theater, IJ stunt show theater) but the footprint is larger than just to thing being replaced. Suffice to say, there can be options to expand the park. Most of these I got from @marni1971 so he can comment if I am incorrect. See for example this post.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I have tried to mark below areas that are specifically considered expansion pads (or backstage areas that can be moved). It's not even including the possibility of expanding into the current parking lots, which was considered in the past. A couple of these would likely only be used if they were replacing the adjacent structures (e.g. BatB theater, IJ stunt show theater) but the footprint is larger than just to thing being replaced. Suffice to say, there can be options to expand the park. Most of these I got from @marni1971 so he can comment if I am incorrect. See for example this post.

View attachment 812422

Isn't one of those literrally just the walkway to Fantasmic, idk what kind of ride can fit there. The Star Wars spot can pretty much exclusively be used for Star Wars stuff which imo the park could use but you get my point I'm sure. Then we have the area where they have a good portion of the Indiana Jones show so we would have to scrap the last part of the show. And the backstage stuff which I agree is a good expansion plot but like I said, rebuilding offices is expensive and not immediately financially "viable"

 

[wannabeBelle]

I have tried to mark below areas that are specifically considered expansion pads (or backstage areas that can be moved). It's not even including the possibility of expanding into the current parking lots, which was considered in the past. A couple of these would likely only be used if they were replacing the adjacent structures (e.g. BatB theater, IJ stunt show theater) but the footprint is larger than just to thing being replaced. Suffice to say, there can be options to expand the park. Most of these I got from @marni1971 so he can comment if I am incorrect. See for example this post.

View attachment 812422

Wow that area back behind Disney Junior is pretty huge!!! That seems like it would make the most amount of sense for expansion now. Does anyone know what that area is with the beige-ish rooftops by Showbiz Blvd and Cypress Drive?? I wonder if those can be moved as well. Marie

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Wow that area back behind Disney Junior is pretty huge!!! That seems like it would make the most amount of sense for expansion now. Does anyone know what that area is with the beige-ish rooftops by Showbiz Blvd and Cypress Drive?? I wonder if those can be moved as well. Marie

Its big but demolishing 3 buildings (1 huge one) and a parking garage and just "moving them" is not necessarily an easy task. I'm not 100% sure whats in that building but I'm sure atleast something in there is pretty essential to Hollywood Studios as a whole. Moving the other buildings would even further complicate this as we're basically taking all of the backstage of Hollywood Studios and moving it... somewhere?? (Would most likely have to be less than 1 mile away) so really in Disney's terms 'a few feet away'


And people called me crazy for wanting them to move Muppetvision. This project would be insanely expensive and not have any real benefits to the guest for years as I'm sure they will have to build the new buildings first, then begin tearing down these and clearing the area, THEN they can start making it presentable

 

[James Alucobond]

This project would be insanely expensive and not have any real benefits to the guest for years as I'm sure they will have to build the new buildings first, then begin tearing down these and clearing the area, THEN they can start making it presentable

They are already telling workers to vacate the Animation offices whether or not Monsters is going there. They absolutely don't have to build other offices elsewhere before they start anything in the area. Not sure where you got that idea.

 

[gorillaball]

To open up Animation Courtyard for a larger property (it could definitely receive one down the road)

Disney has kinda been clear that they want to keep expansion plots open when they can and will choose a more complicated process to do so (See ROA)

Do I think they necessarily WILL bring Muppets over? Not 100% but with the pushback I could imagine them considering it. If I was Disney, I would consider putting Muppets in a renovated Lightning Mcqueen Racing Academy Theater, retheme RocknRollercoaster to Mayhem, and make a Muppets Miniland over by RnRC, put Monsters where MV is right now, and put something like Avengers Campus (not possible rn) or Zootopia in Animation Courtyard to better use up all of that large amount of space.

Edit: your proposals of sufficiently been responded to already, I was late to the game - removed my thoughts.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

They are already telling workers to vacate the Animation offices whether or not Monsters is going there. They absolutely don't have to build other offices elsewhere before they start anything in the area. Not sure where you got that idea.

With all due respect, I'm not talking about just the Animation offices. I'm talking about the 6 other buildings that would also have to be demolished if we took out everything from that area. I'm sure atleast a chunk of that stuff is still necessarily SOMEWHERE in HS

 

[wannabeBelle]

Its big but demolishing 3 buildings (1 huge one) and a parking garage and just "moving them" is not necessarily an easy task. I'm not 100% sure whats in that building but I'm sure atleast something in there is pretty essential to Hollywood Studios as a whole. Moving the other buildings would even further complicate this as we're basically taking all of the backstage of Hollywood Studios and moving it... somewhere?? (Would most likely have to be less than 1 mile away) so really in Disney's terms 'a few feet away'


And people called me crazy for wanting them to move Muppetvision. This project would be insanely expensive and not have any real benefits to the guest for years as I'm sure they will have to build the new buildings first, then begin tearing down these and clearing the area, THEN they can start making it presentable

Office buildings are easily replaced with either existing structures elsewhere on or off site. Off site makes even more sense so as to ease traffic on property and reduce travel times to get into work for the cast.
As far as moving Muppetvision, that would be a viable option but again involves some pretty big demolition work and then construction. After that you are landlocked again and would have to look at the other side of the park to expand anyhow. Opening up this side of the park keeps the Muppets attraction and actually expands the park for current and future opportunities. I think the math would equal out ultimately. Marie

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

This assumes ROA was a more complicated process, my opinion it's actually the easier process (I didn't say best).

On the 2nd part, I'll just say I'm glad you aren't Disney, lots of $$$ to retheme other items but not gaining anything more than the original Monsters Inc ride.

How is the ROA issue easier than building around the rivers and filling in the expansion spot they are leaving for something else?

I'm sure people wouldn't love me being Disney if all you care about is 1-1 capacity. I mean even my idea that I just said would add a few more rides of capacity but sure. I also care about theming and every attraction feeling like the best version of itself it could be. :/

 

[gorillaball]

How is the ROA issue easier than building around the rivers and filling in the expansion spot they are leaving for something else?

I'm sure people wouldn't love me being Disney if all you care about is 1-1 capacity. I mean even my idea that I just said would add a few more rides of capacity but sure. I also care about theming and every attraction feeling like the best version of itself it could be. :/

I think building on ROA is easier than budling behind it. I'm not in construction, don't take my word for it.

You are correct, capacity is the primary driver for me. Retheming and moving a handful of rides so one ride fits "better" at 2x the $ vs the more simplistic same capacity add option isn't something I'd be in favor of.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I completely agree with this.

Part of the issue here though is we are assuming that Disney is acting differently (i.e. replacing Muppet*Vision instead of Animation Courtyard). When big decisions are made in any capacity (life, theme parks, etc) there's a practical side and an emotional side.

The emotional side here is that we don't want to see Muppet*Vision go away. In this case, you could also argue that removing Muppet*Vision is also an impractical solution and it's why we are all saying that putting it in Animation Courtyard makes more sense.

With all that said, if the choice is Muppets going away, I firmly hope that there is another shoe to drop with Animation Courtyard that would further address the capacity issues.

There’s nothing emotional about recognizing that the park needs capacity and that technically net increases are insufficient to dig the park out of its very deep hole.

 

[lazyboy97o]

With all due respect, I'm not talking about just the Animation offices. I'm talking about the 6 other buildings that would also have to be demolished if we took out everything from that area. I'm sure atleast a chunk of that stuff is still necessarily SOMEWHERE in HS

Moving backstage facilities happens all of the time in parks. It’s far more of a political hurdle than the technical and cost hurdle you’re trying to portray. Beyond relocating facilities there’s also the possibility of integrating them into new construction. Look at how additional offices were integrated into Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway at Disneyland.

 

[PuertoRekinSam]

Wow that area back behind Disney Junior is pretty huge!!! That seems like it would make the most amount of sense for expansion now. Does anyone know what that area is with the beige-ish rooftops by Showbiz Blvd and Cypress Drive?? I wonder if those can be moved as well. Marie

If I remember correctly from when the marathon ran us back that way, Those two behind animation and the one next to rock and roller are park operations buildings, the offices for the leaders in the park. Unlike the offices in the animation building, those can’t just be moved to Celebration.

 

[doctornick]

They are already telling workers to vacate the Animation offices whether or not Monsters is going there. They absolutely don't have to build other offices elsewhere before they start anything in the area. Not sure where you got that idea.

Yeah. How will they every find office space for people to work in? They could move most of the people in the former Animation building to almost anywhere that they can find space; it wouldn't take long at all to relocate them.

Office buildings are easily replaced with either existing structures elsewhere on or off site. Off site makes even more sense so as to ease traffic on property and reduce travel times to get into work for the cast.

also, FWIW, parking needs. If you take people who don't need to be at DHS out of the area then it frees up parking space that doesn't have to be replaced in the area.

 

[doctornick]

I think building on ROA is easier than budling behind it. I'm not in construction, don't take my word for it.

I don't think it is clear either way as there are some complexities with either situation. But one thing that is certainly true is that removing the riverboat and TSI reduces the ongoing costs to continue to run those things so the cost savings going forward is probably viewed as a plus for Disney.

 

[doctornick]

Moving backstage facilities happens all of the time in parks. It’s far more of a political hurdle than the technical and cost hurdle you’re trying to portray. Beyond relocating facilities there’s also the possibility of integrating them into new construction. Look at how additional offices were integrated into Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway at Disneyland.

Exactly this. Backstage facilities have gotten moved multiple times at DLR where it is far more complicated to do so but they do it in order to develop all the space as optimally as possible.