News New Haunted Mansion Grounds Expansion, Retail Shop Coming to Disneyland Resort in 2024

[Disney Analyst]

They were using it when I was there last week. It's not a huge space. Just goes back a little ways then turns back around. I noticed some cases marked Fantasmic! back there along with some stanchions being stored.


This was what they were doing when I was there:

View attachment 828122
(Green: standby, red: LL)

They would just halt the standby line when LL people came to let them cross.

And if they really do mean it when they say LL is temporary, lots of space to reconfigure standby and expand the queue, without needing to account for LL.

 

[waltography]

They were using it when I was there last week. It's not a huge space. Just goes back a little ways then turns back around. I noticed some cases marked Fantasmic! back there along with some stanchions being stored.


This was what they were doing when I was there:

View attachment 828122
(Green: standby, red: LL)

They would just halt the standby line when LL people came to let them cross.

Looking at this POV now, Royal Street Veranda doesn't seem to offer a whole lot of space for a queue expansion (at least any expansion that'd make a good dent on the current problem). I wonder where else they could get space? Could they "dig into" the bridge for more queue space and theme it to a dungeon or something? Is the solution to go underground?

 

[chadwpalm]

Looking at this POV now, Royal Street Veranda doesn't seem to offer a whole lot of space for a queue expansion (at least any expansion that'd make a good dent on the current problem). I wonder where else they could get space? Could they "dig into" the bridge for more queue space and theme it to a dungeon or something? Is the solution to go underground?

Well, the rumor is that the Port Royal shop and possibly the Royal Courtyard would become part of the queue as well.

I drew up a concept idea of what they can do a couple months back:

News - New Haunted Mansion Grounds Expansion, Retail Shop Coming to Disneyland Resort in 2024

What are the rumored POTC queue changes? Looking at an overhead map I can’t see any scenario where a rerouted queue doesn’t block something, it would be nice to get the queue out of the walkways but I can’t see a way to do it that would be less intrusive than what they are currently doing...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[MK-fan]

Well, the rumor is that the Port Royal shop and possibly the Royal Courtyard would become part of the queue as well.

I drew up a concept idea of what they can do a couple months back:

News - New Haunted Mansion Grounds Expansion, Retail Shop Coming to Disneyland Resort in 2024

What are the rumored POTC queue changes? Looking at an overhead map I can’t see any scenario where a rerouted queue doesn’t block something, it would be nice to get the queue out of the walkways but I can’t see a way to do it that would be less intrusive than what they are currently doing...

forums.wdwmagic.com

Is the royal courtyard used to enter the 21 Royal restaurant or is the entrance through the old Disney Gallery staircase. Also, was the staircase in the courtyard created during the 2017 renovation or has it always been there?

 

[choco choco]

Currently standing in the Haunted Mansion queue. As with everything WDI does nowadays, it’s over-scaled. The trellis awning height is too high. The covered canopy is too high. The elevator shaft is too high. The gift shop roofline is too high. I don’t understand the need to have these elements be so tall, guests can’t reach above more than like 7’2”. Lowering everything in the queue about one foot would have done wonders, and the buildings two to three feet a huge difference, and i don’t think functionality would have been affected at all.

 

[wityblack]

Currently standing in the Haunted Mansion queue. As with everything WDI does nowadays, it’s over-scaled. The trellis awning height is too high. The covered canopy is too high. The elevator shaft is too high. The gift shop roofline is too high. I don’t understand the need to have these elements be so tall, guests can’t reach above more than like 7’2”. Lowering everything in the queue about one foot would have done wonders, and the buildings two to three feet a huge difference, and i don’t think functionality would have been affected at all.

I think the elevator shaft is a necessity.

 

[etc98]

Currently standing in the Haunted Mansion queue. As with everything WDI does nowadays, it’s over-scaled. The trellis awning height is too high. The covered canopy is too high. The elevator shaft is too high. The gift shop roofline is too high. I don’t understand the need to have these elements be so tall, guests can’t reach above more than like 7’2”. Lowering everything in the queue about one foot would have done wonders, and the buildings two to three feet a huge difference, and i don’t think functionality would have been affected at all.

I wonder how much of it has to do with code changes. I think in general minimum ceiling heights have increased over time. I don’t know if that affects Disney though.

 

[Disney Irish]

I wonder how much of it has to do with code changes. I think in general minimum ceiling heights have increased over time. I don’t know if that affects Disney though.

I said the same thing awhile back, but was shutdown by our resident "code experts".

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wonder how much of it has to do with code changes. I think in general minimum ceiling heights have increased over time. I don’t know if that affects Disney though.

Very little. California Building Standards Code, Section 1208.2 only requires a minimum ceiling height of 7’-6”. In the 20th century the California Building Standards Code was based on the Uniform Building Code, and in 1964 Section 1405 of the model Uniform Building Code (the base code adopted and amended by states and/or local jurisdictions) required the same minimum ceiling height of 7’-6”. Accessibility is also not a cause as Section 11B-307 only requires 80” (6’-8”) of vertical clearance from other objects, the same as Section 307 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. So, no, it is not because building codes changed to make ceilings higher. It’s design and operational decisions.

I said the same thing awhile back, but was shutdown by our resident "code experts".

You’re free to cite some codes.

 

[Disney Irish]

Very little. California Building Standards Code, Section 1208.2 only requires a minimum ceiling height of 7’-6”. In the 20th century the California Building Standards Code was based on the Uniform Building Code, and in 1964 Section 1405 of the model Uniform Building Code (the base code adopted and amended by states and/or local jurisdictions) required the same minimum ceiling height of 7’-6”. Accessibility is also not a cause as Section 11B-307 only requires 80” (6’-8”) of vertical clearance from other objects, the same as Section 307 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. So, no, it is not because building codes changed to make ceilings higher. It’s design and operational decisions.


You’re free to cite some codes.

And I provided some the last time we had this conversation, unless we’re looking at the exact blue prints it’s all conjecture and interpretation of the codes.

So unless you have some specific knowledge of this specific project your “guess” of the “whys” are no better than anyone else here.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And I provided some the last time we had this conversation, unless we’re looking at the exact blue prints it’s all conjecture and interpretation of the codes.

So unless you have some specific knowledge of this specific project your “guess” of the “whys” are no better than anyone else here.

I'm not citing any specific code,

Not only did you not provide some, you specifically refused to provide some.

You and others made a guess that sounded technical and were wrong. Just accept it instead of playing this nonsensical “we can’t know” game. We can know because the codes are published and 1208.2 is prescriptive. There is no interpretation required. Nor do we need to consult the construction documents because this isn’t something that would drastically change based on a classification determined by the architect, 1208.2 still applies as written.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not only did you not provide some, you specifically refused to provide some.

You and others made a guess that sounded technical and were wrong. Just accept it instead of playing this nonsensical “we can’t know” game. We can know because the codes are published and 1208.2 is prescriptive. There is no interpretation required. Nor do we need to consult the construction documents because this isn’t something that would drastically change based on a classification determined by the architect, 1208.2 still applies as written.

I have no issue being wrong, but you never even indicate the possibility that you can be wrong yourself in any of these conversations. So again I go back to what I said before, unless you have some specific knowledge of this specific project your “guess” of the “whys” are no better than anyone else here.

 

[Professortango1]

I have no issue being wrong, but you never even indicate the possibility that you can be wrong yourself in any of these conversations. So again I go back to what I said before, unless you have some specific knowledge of this specific project your “guess” of the “whys” are no better than anyone else here.

So you are still not providing any specifics? They offered specific codes and you keep dodging.

 

[Disney Irish]

So you are still not providing any specifics? They offered specific codes and you keep dodging.

I’m not dodging, I very well could be wrong here. The code offered when I looked it up previously wasn’t clear that it applied also to commercial or only residential. As there are other codes like 1224.4.10 that apply to other commercial dwellings like hospitals that require 8ft ceilings. So I leave open the possibility that there are things which aren’t available to me, but the other poster doesn’t.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have no issue being wrong, but you never even indicate the possibility that you can be wrong yourself in any of these conversations. So again I go back to what I said before, unless you have some specific knowledge of this specific project your “guess” of the “whys” are no better than anyone else here.

I’m not dodging, I very well could be wrong here. The code offered when I looked it up previously wasn’t clear that it applied also to commercial or only residential. As there are other codes like 1224.4.10 that apply to other commercial dwellings like hospitals that require 8ft ceilings. So I leave open the possibility that there are things which aren’t available to me, but the other poster doesn’t.

It is generally accepted that the burden of providing evidence rests with the one making the assertion. Instead of providing information you keep going to some unspecified, unidentified, “other” source of information that may support your claim. A ridiculous standard that cannot be overcome with any amount of evidence because the desired evidence is completely undefined.

The codes are publicly available which is part of why I make a point of providing specific citations. I am confident in my assessment because I am not just making assumptions or quickly finding something. I am quite familiar with the regulations governing building design, construction and maintenance including the International Building Code and several of its offshoots such as the California Building Standards Code. I am familiar with the organization of the code and where to find the exceptions and additional requirements. I didn’t miss Sections 1224 - 1254, I just didn’t mention them as relevant. The code is organized by subject, but there is the caveat of Chapter 4 which has special requirements based on use if you’d like to check through there.

If you had questions about the provided references you could have just asked instead of claiming it’s impossible to know if they apply and appealing to the authority of other unspecified requirements.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Honestly, who the frock cares? It looks great, this is a fantastic update, the mansion is now more accessible and efficient, and we all win.

Move on.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Honestly, who the frock cares? It looks great, this is a fantastic update, the mansion is now more accessible and efficient, and we all win.

Move on.

So safety doesn’t matter? What other things is it cool to just spread incorrect information about? What other professions can we denigrate as pointless?

 

[Disney Analyst]

So what other things is it cool to just spread incorrect information about? What other professions can we denigrate as pointless?

The profession is not pointless. The conversation is. Whether it came down to specific codes, Disney’s own decided codes, a design choice, a random dart thrown at a board of options … it’s done. It’s built. It’s objectively successful.

There is no need for fighting over any of this. Move along everyone.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The profession is not pointless. The conversation is. Whether it came down to specific codes, Disney’s own decided codes, a design choice, a random dart thrown at a board of options … it’s done. It’s built. It’s objectively successful.

There is no need for fighting over any of this. Move along everyone.

In what other areas do you think it is appropriate to misattribute causes? Would you say it’s pointless to correct someone who claimed Disneyland was inspired by Six Flags Over Texas?

 

[Disney Irish]

It is generally accepted that the burden of providing evidence rests with the one making the assertion. Instead of providing information you keep going to some unspecified, unidentified, “other” source of information that may support your claim. A ridiculous standard that cannot be overcome with any amount of evidence because the desired evidence is completely undefined.

The codes are publicly available which is part of why I make a point of providing specific citations. I am confident in my assessment because I am not just making assumptions or quickly finding something. I am quite familiar with the regulations governing building design, construction and maintenance including the International Building Code and several of its offshoots such as the California Building Standards Code. I am familiar with the organization of the code and where to find the exceptions and additional requirements. I didn’t miss Sections 1224 - 1254, I just didn’t mention them as relevant. The code is organized by subject, but there is the caveat of Chapter 4 which has special requirements based on use if you’d like to check through there.

If you had questions about the provided references you could have just asked instead of claiming it’s impossible to know if they apply and appealing to the authority of other unspecified requirements.

And as I've said now numerous times I could be wrong. Also please note that I'm in no way trying to denigrate what is obviously something you have at least a passion for if not a direct knowledge due to professional usage.

Your assertion is that there is nothing in the code that governs the decisions to why it was built as large as it was, is it possible that you could be wrong? I mean even just a little? My issue has been that you don't leave open not even a possibility that you could be wrong. I at least leave open that possibility in all my discussions, because maybe there is something I don't know even if I am an expert in said discussion (not saying I am in this case).

The building I assume is classified under Group M occupancy. So the question is if there is something in the codes that has a greater than 7'6" ceiling requirement under that group.