New WDW resorts--no time soon? but...

[Macadamite85]

bjm72385: The purple areas are 1) the old Persian resort site, now a staging area and CM-only parking lot; and 2) the Wilderness/Buffalo Junction site between Wilderness Lodge and Fort Wilderness. By the original map, do you mean the 1991 map from NickC? If you're interested in the "H#" parcels, I can put them in and post a new map here. I think it's best to keep the one in the OP as uncluttered as possible.

I was debating putting the solar Mickey head in there, but cooler minds prevailed.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

I like posts that are relatively lengthy and in-depth such as this one...why? because they actually contain valuable information that, if you take the time to at least scan through, can give you insight that other people don't provide. Thanks for the post!

 

[Texas84]

Are you saying you wouldn't want to stay at Disney's All Star Dump? I'm sure if the price is right, there's a crowd for that....as gross as it may seem.

Well, it was on a tour. Might still be. It's really fun running through there in the middle of a marathon.

 

[doctornick]

Lake Bambi is north of Epcot Center Drive, adjacent to a large Conservation-designated area (i.e., not usable). It's unlikely any major construction would happen in there near-term, especially given all the non-Conservation options available.

Now that I look at the map in the first post, I think the area I was trying to remember is the former STOL airport site (though I thought there was usable land closer to Lake Bambi).

Nonetheless, my question remains: I wonder if they would use the "Airfield Environs" site for a new resort and have it be a "monorail" resort on the Epcot monorail line? It would be a way to advertise a new deluxe type resort (perhaps with DVC) and to better utilize the Epcot monorail line. On the flip side, it would slow down the Epcot monorail somewhat by adding a stop each way and creates the question as to whether the resort would have bus transport to the MK or would you have to take 2 monorails?

 

[bethymouse]

Fix the monorail and expand the parks before building another resort (DVC).

 

[Macadamite85]

...information that, if you take the time to at least scan through, can give you insight...

Glad you enjoyed the post! Even after a short time here it's clear that a lot of folks have extensive insight and information going back a long way. The neat thing about the forum format is that the OP can be a repository for updated and corrected information that others can reference if they wish.

I wonder if they would use the "Airfield Environs" site for a new resort and have it be a "monorail" resort on the Epcot monorail line?

Good question--intriguing, even! My bias leans "no monorail expansion" because a compelling return on investment seems like a tough row to hoe in any scenario. However, a new resort around the STOLport site could easily lead to that question. As a guess, south of the triangle (formed by World Drive, Vista Blvd, and the service road that's coned off before the gate) would be worth a look, and that puts you just north of Lake Bambi and about halfway between TTC and EP. Not on my wish list, but, objectively, it seems reasonable.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I never really thought of it until this post, but you really could have (pending the conservation areas, of course) 2-3 resorts along the Epcot monorail which, I think, would be good because that's a boring trip from TTC->Epcot and back.

 

[Nubs70]

I mean adding ANY more rooms. Period. There isn't enough space in the parks anymore to hold all of the people that they are filling in the rooms that they have on property now. I'm not saying they shouldn't add any more rooms but they need to expand the parks first before they do. You can't sell 500 tickets for a 200 Cedar point can you?

This is a radical thought. If admission is restricted to onsite guests only, PCGS becomes PRGS. This results in increased revenue per person. Thus the same revenue can be attained with fewer people.

From a financial engineering perspective, park revenues become a streamlined function of the number of available room nights.

Want to increase park revenue? Should we build more attractions? No, build more rooms.

 

[Macadamite85]

...PCGS becomes PRGS.

I'm curious--what are PCGS and PRGS? A Google search for abbreviations keeps coming up "coins" and World Bank. Thanks!

 

[raven]

This is a radical thought. If admission is restricted to onsite guests only, PCGS becomes PRGS. This results in increased revenue per person. Thus the same revenue can be attained with fewer people.

From a financial engineering perspective, park revenues become a streamlined function of the number of available room nights.

Want to increase park revenue? Should we build more attractions? No, build more rooms.

Making more revenue isn't the problem. It's the crowds.

 

[Nubs70]

Making more revenue isn't the problem. It's the crowds.

Precisely, by making park admission contingent with resort rental, crowd levels will decrease while maintaining top line revenue.

Eliminating the load of admission only guest and replacing with admission + resort guests offers the opportunity to solely focus on resort capacity as the main lever to increase revenue.

While a novel theory, the repercussions to locals and offside resorts would be really bad.

 

[Nubs70]

I'm curious--what are PCGS and PRGS? A Google search for abbreviations keeps coming up "coins" and World Bank. Thanks!

PCGS is per capita guest spend. How much an individual spends per day to get into and while inside the parks.

PRGS is per resort guest spend. How much an individual spends per day at a resort. I.E. room charge, food, and merch.

The are the key financial metrics used by P&R. These numbers can be found in Disney's 10k statements.

 

[raven]

Precisely, by making park admission contingent with resort rental, crowd levels will decrease while maintaining top line revenue.

Eliminating the load of admission only guest and replacing with admission + resort guests offers the opportunity to solely focus on resort capacity as the main lever to increase revenue.

While a novel theory, the repercussions to locals and offside resorts would be really bad.

In order for them to make up lost revenue from outside guests visiting the parks, ticket prices for on-site guests would be well over $200/person...per day. The clientele that price attracts, you're gonna have to make every resort room DVC quality and expectation levels would be through the roof at that price.

This is clearly not the way to handle crowd levels. They simply need more open space.

 

[Macadamite85]

Nubs70: Thanks for explaining! Very interesting--would you agree that standing pat on new resort construction for now would facilitate a strategy of using resort capacity to increase overall revenue? Agreed, that would be a negative for offsite hotels, especially along 192. It seems like a gamble that it could decrease crowds, at the risk of perceived exclusivity among guests. Maybe the Mouse shrugs at such a perception?

raven: How would you suggest Disney find more open space--rearranging backstage, going into conservation areas, etc.?

 

[raven]

Nubs70: Thanks for explaining! Very interesting--would you agree that standing pat on new resort construction for now would facilitate a strategy of using resort capacity to increase overall revenue? Agreed, that would be a negative for offsite hotels, especially along 192. It seems like a gamble that it could decrease crowds, at the risk of perceived exclusivity among guests. Maybe the Mouse shrugs at such a perception?

raven: How would you suggest Disney find more open space--rearranging backstage, going into conservation areas, etc.?

For starters, stop replacing attractions. Just build more.

There is a ton of room on property for expansion and even a new park.

As for building into conservation areas, this would be a good reason why the company recently purchased offsite wetland property. Extra land elsewhere frees up onsite land previously makes for conservation area. Although they will probably just fill it up with more DVCs.

 

[raymusiccity]

For starters, stop replacing attractions. Just build more.

There is a ton of room on property for expansion and even a new park.

As for building into conservation areas, this would be a good reason why the company recently purchased offsite wetland property. Extra land elsewhere frees up onsite land previously makes for conservation area. Although they will probably just fill it up with more DVCs.

There's no need to build into conservation areas or do much to beef up any transportation issues with the 'Ft. Wilderness site. There's plenty of infrastructure and it seemed enticingly close to being given the green light, until the economy took its recent dip. Lots of 'leaked' plans reflect plenty of planning has already been thought out and completed. It wouldn't look intrusive since there's plenty of trees already well established on site:

 

[raven]

There's no need to build into conservation areas or do much to beef up any transportation issues with the 'Ft. Wilderness site. There's plenty of infrastructure and it seemed enticingly close to being given the green light, until the economy took its recent dip. Lots of 'leaked' plans reflect plenty of planning has already been thought out and completed. It wouldn't look intrusive since there's plenty of trees already well established on site:

View attachment 115834

I was thinking more of park expansion into conservation areas. But there is one large plot of land that was labeled as possible "5th park" expansion area that has yet to be looked upon by anything as of yet.

 

[P_Radden]

There's no need to build into conservation areas or do much to beef up any transportation issues with the 'Ft. Wilderness site. There's plenty of infrastructure and it seemed enticingly close to being given the green light, until the economy took its recent dip. Lots of 'leaked' plans reflect plenty of planning has already been thought out and completed. It wouldn't look intrusive since there's plenty of trees already well established on site:

View attachment 115834

Any chance of there being a better resolution version of this? Very interesting!

 

[Nubs70]

Nubs70: Thanks for explaining! Very interesting--would you agree that standing pat on new resort construction for now would facilitate a strategy of using resort capacity to increase overall revenue? Agreed, that would be a negative for offsite hotels, especially along 192. It seems like a gamble that it could decrease crowds, at the risk of perceived exclusivity among guests. Maybe the Mouse shrugs at such a perception?

raven: How would you suggest Disney find more open space--rearranging backstage, going into conservation areas, etc.?

In need to restate PRGS.

PRGS is is Per Room Guest Spending

 

[Macadamite85]

raymusiccity: Agreed, the zone between the Junction and the LBV STOLport appears to have been considered. Based on the Mixed Use and Hotel/Resort areas (brown and purple) shown in RCID's 2020 plan, it looks like the way is planned for Wilderness Junction (or whatever theme/name), with connections to Bay Lake, the Lodge, and the Fort. There's also the long, thin Mixed Use connector between the Junction and the airfield--something like a Sassagoula-ish "river" could go into that. Riffing on others' posts here, it's not a stretch to visualize a Junction resort connected by the "Wilderness River" to a DVC property east of the STOLport--which RCID considers Potential Hotel/Resort/Commercial/Entertainment space. Throw in some attractions like a reused/updated/re-Imagineered DisneyQuest, a La Nouba-ish theatre venue, and maybe a high-end dark ride or two like Toy Story Mania for the "Entertainment" component. And to top it all off, put in a monorail stop for access to MK or EP. You'd then have a somewhat exclusive network of traditional and DVD resorts focused around entertainment that would give all guests an option to bleed off from the theme parks and make them less crowded. All without tapping conservation areas.

Frightening! But plausible?