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

[wdisney9000]

I agree with most of what you said, however, this part got me thinking. In order for them to allow more people in the parks, you first have to have more supply of people. Without building out more rooms, or filling every truly available room, where are more people coming from? Unless opening of these news lands instantly draws more people that would otherwise not be at WDW at all, you would have less people elsewhere within the parks. I'm not saying that won't happen, just wondering if that truly is the expectation. Will there suddenly be all sorts of Star Wars fans in the studios that wouldn't be guests of the parks otherwise? Same for Avatar fans? This is all just something I'm throwing out there, not necessarily at you specifically @wdisney9000

I think there could very well be an increase in attendance for Star Wars, not sure about Avatar tho, lol. I should have phrased it better. I meant more along the lines that attendance will most likely continue to increase over the next few years, so when they finally open SW or Avatar Lands, the additional attraction capacity could simply have a very small effect. I dont see wait times for TSMM going down dramatically after SW land opens. I hope Im wrong tho.

 

[AEfx]

I think there could very well be an increase in attendance for Star Wars, not sure about Avatar tho, lol. I should have phrased it better. I meant more along the lines that attendance will most likely continue to increase over the next few years, so when they finally open SW or Avatar Lands, the additional attraction capacity could simply have a very small effect. I dont see wait times for TSMM going down dramatically after SW land opens. I hope Im wrong tho.

On the larger issue, I think we forget that there are many thousands of hotel rooms in the Orlando area that aren't on Disney property. Orlando is not going to run out of hotel rooms. Of course, Disney wants folks to stay with them - but overall, Disney having more or less rooms really doesn't affect park capacity and vice versa.

As to Star Wars, I think you will be blown away. There are going to be so many people who have never, or who haven't in a long time, taken a Disney vacation just to see it. It's pretty much the most unprecedented attraction/land addition that any Disney Park has ever had in terms of public desire for the theme, and a demonstrative public more than willing to shell out big bucks to be a part of.

 

[GoofyDufy]

....
First, Disney's current game plan for new lodgings appears to focus upon existing flag-brand partners who build their hotels on land purchased (as opposed to ground-leased) from Disney, as with Four Seasons and at Flamingo Crossings.
...
!

Awesome analysis! In addition to focusing upon existing flag-brand partners, Disney's current plan is to increase capacity at existing resorts via DVC. With DVD heavily increasing it ROFR buy back at certain resorts it may be an indicator of which resorts are next to get the PV/VWL treatment (OKW and BC).

It would be nice to see the analysis you have done for new locations applied to available land in and around existing resorts.

Possibly answer questions like... is there land available to build another BC building or lake side cabins? Could the golf course by OKW be redesigned to fit a phase 2 of OKW?

 

[Macadamite85]

GoofyDufy: Glad you enjoyed it! You wanted more, you got it, although I'd like to steer clear of the OKW/golf course question. See below for analysis of possible existing resort expansion, plus the theme parks given the level of interest here. As always, all corrections/updates welcome!

NOTE: I tried to add this to the OP, but apparently there's a mercy limit on number of characters. Only so much space for novellas on forums?

Suitable/Mixed Use Areas: Possible Expansion of Existing Resorts and Theme Parks

First, it's worth noting that the current DVC expansion of Wilderness Lodge entails use of Marginally Suitable land between the resort's existing footprint and Bay Lake. In general, such use is strongly discouraged and can present logistical challenges based on drainage and soil characteristics. Clearly Disney has found the challenges surmountable and in this location is willing to expend wetland offsets represented by outlying reserve acreage. Comparisons to other existing resort sites are theoretically possible but difficult to raise due to varying geological characteristics throughout WDW.

Expansion of the MK monorail resorts is unlikely any time soon, given that all have had DVC rooms added during the past several years. Grand Floridian and Polynesian Village are especially saturated and constrained by Seven Seas Lagoon.

Fort Wilderness is flanked by canal L-105 and Marginally Suitable land, expansion into which is possible only if soil conditions permit. A Mixed Use parcel accessible by a narrow neck south of Willow Way would accommodate a good-sized loop, but such traffic could be detrimental to the comfort of campers in Loop 2800.

Expansion of the Epcot resorts is constrained by the resorts' parking areas, by Hollywood Studios, by the solar farm currently under construction, and by Epcot itself. Even so, there is limited space to add possible new wings to Beach Club (in the wooded area to the east) and BoardWalk Inn (northward toward the bridge to International Gateway); both areas are Marginally Suitable land, and construction there, if geologically feasible, would likely come at an aesthetic cost for limited gains in available rooms.

The aforementioned (in the OP) Suitable/Mixed Use area northwest of AKL remains a viable possibility for expansion, which would likely take the form of DVC rooms to the west of Kidani Village.

Caribbean Beach has space for construction of a new "island" south of Jamaica, in adjacent Hotel/Resort and Mixed Use areas. It's likely that Disney would first undertake alteration of Barefoot Bay's contour across from Trinidad South, from a straight line to more aesthetically pleasing curves. It's unclear why Disney has yet to use this area for additional rooms.

Coronado Springs is mostly constrained by Conservation-designated land in Reedy Creek's basin, the waterway toward the Everglades. It's very unlikely that Disney will build in the region in the foreseeable future. A Marginally Suitable parcel lies east of the resort's Cabanas section, but access would need to traverse the resort's traffic circuit, inconsistent with the placement of all other resort buildings and at risk of increasing pedestrian distances that are already substantial; the prospect is unlikely.

Port Orleans is already very large, but further expansion into Marginally Suitable areas eastward are technically possible if conditions would permit. The smaller but more likely parcel east of Magnolia Terrace would require traversal of Sassagoula Circle and would present the possibility of noise disturbance from service facility activities farther east. The larger parcel east of French Quarter would require extension of Orleans Drive to a bridge over Sassagoula River, leading to a very narrow strip that penetrates the LBV golf course; the prospect is unlikely.

Old Key West is constrained by Buena Vista Drive and Bonnet Creek Parkway to the south and west, by DVC Way and Port Orleans to the north, and by LBV golf course and a Conservation area to the east. There are no likely areas for expansion.

Saratoga Springs is constrained by the Treehouse Villas, Village Lake, Buena Vista Drive, and various service facilities. There could be limited space for a small hotel unit and associated parking off Fairway Drive north of The Grandstand, but the fit would be very tight, the scope would be meager, and the overall effect would disrupt the aesthetic feel of the greens.

The All-Star resorts are bound by Reedy Creek’s basin and its surrounding Conservation area. It's highly unlikely that Disney would ever expand into this area. Eastward is another Conservation area with a canal, another very unlikely choice for new construction.

Art of Animation and Pop Century are surrounded by Osceola Parkway, Victory Way, Caribbean Beach and a shared service facility, and the WDW border. There is no room for expansion of either resort.

Magic Kingdom: At first glance, a fair amount of available acreage exists north and northeast of the park's guest areas. RCID identifies a fair amount of acreage (north of Frontierland thence eastward to Fantasyland) as Entertainment space, meaning that it is developable. This acreage is bound by Rivers of America, canal L-407, a backstage area north of It's A Small World, and the WDWRR track that runs throughout; a thin connection extends the developable space toward Journey of the Little Mermaid.

A prohibitive constraint is that much of the space, especially east of the Indian village, is in a fireworks launch area--a serious hazard to guests and a Magic spoiler to boot. Assuming westerly prevailing winds, the parcels north of Big Thunder Mountain and west of the Indian village might be viable for outdoor attractions, but enclosed, interior attractions with well-protected roofs would be most practicable throughout the Entertainment area. Access to such facilities would be limited--two possible strategies appear tenable but not especially desirable or cost-effective:

1) An extra stop on the WDWRR could provide access to any attractions throughout the undeveloped Entertainment area; this is the only practical way to access the area north of Big Thunder Mountain barring major reconstruction of that attraction, which is very unlikely.

2) Elevated, enclosed walkways that cross over Magic Kingdom Drive--and prevent visibility of backstage areas--could provide access to enclosed attractions north of the following adjacent facilities via very limited/tight frontage between them: Haunted Mansion and It's A Small World; Pinocchio Village Haus and Enchanted Tales with Belle; and Gaston's Tavern and Journey of the Little Mermaid. The aesthetic effect on the overall frontage would be questionable at best and could suggest jarring desperation at worst.

Of the Mixed Use areas north of canal L-407, only the small parcel northwest of Big Thunder Mountain and near Floridian Way provides likely buildable space. All other Mixed Use acreage north of MK is in a fairly narrow stretch and is too close to the fireworks launchers and its adjoining safety zones, including the pond between the WDWRR Fantasyland station and World Drive.

A developable Entertainment area lies southwest of Pirates of the Caribbean; access to it would present substantial challenges. The most likely origin point for an elevated, enclosed walkway to the site is the alley between Pirates and Jungle Cruise. From there, the access structure would have to extend over the WDWRR and Caribbean Way--with clearance for large parade floats--before reaching any attraction at the site. Depending on changes in elevation, ramps or elevators could be required. An outdoor attraction would be feasible as long as it could be engineered to avoid disturbance by adjacent Electrical Water Pageant activities. Visibility of structures from the monorail express loop also could require extensive concealment, although guest attention is overwhelmingly focused on Seven Seas Lagoon in the opposite direction. Expansion westward of this area into Marginally Suitable land would require traversal of the Pageant canal; even if drainage and soil conditions allowed such construction, it's unlikely that Disney would make such a large area accessible through a lengthy tunnel or other confined space starting in Adventureland, nor would reclamation of backstage areas--to place access at ground level--be likely, especially given the use of the area for parade activities.

It's notable that, of the above options, only an outdoor attraction northwest to north of Big Thunder Mountain would be likely to increase the feeling of open space in which guests could walk around without first traveling through a lengthy tunnel or other confined space.

Finally, a Mixed Use area between Space Mountain and the retention pond northward might accommodate park expansion into open space, but it's difficult to guess how Disney would achieve access to the site. The WDWRR Fantasyland station, Barnstormer, Dumbo, Tomorrowland Speedway, and the pond collectively block access eastward to the site. Access from the Tomorrowland restrooms just south of Space Mountain could loop counterclockwise around the Mountain's base via a very lengthy and tightly constrained walkway over a canal to the site's south end. Concealment of a backstage area and possibly World Drive would be necessary. The length of such access would be roughly the same as travel from the WDWRR Main Street station to the Partners statue at the Hub. A new "station" added to the TTA PeopleMover could provide access to the site, but the prospect seems unlikely.

Epcot: There is meager if any space for expansion of the park's current footprint. An Entertainment area technically would be accessible via an elevated, enclosed walkway north of Wonders of Life/Festival Center, over Avenue of the Stars, over a canal, and into a wooded parcel. Walking distance alone might preclude such use; the prospect seems unwieldy and costly at best. Also, based on the site lines, the area has the appearance of being reserved for expansion of parking space. The adjacent parking area to the west could similarly be reached from a point near Ellen's Energy Adventure, but the prospect seems unlikely.

A Mixed Use area lies south of The American Adventure, technically accessible only by an elevated, enclosed walkway over Avenue of the Stars, over a canal, and into a wooded parcel, flanked by the Speedway gas station to the west and the Reedy Creek Fire & Rescue station to the east. The walking distance and complexity make the prospect very unlikely.

The only other possibilities for Epcot expansion entail rearrangement/reuse of backstage areas, including unused World Showcase sites--specific development of which could entail either open space or enclosed attractions. With the above options that expand the park's footprint, any feeling of open space in which guests could walk around would necessarily follow travel through a lengthy tunnel or other confined space.

Hollywood Studios: Expansion of the park's current footprint is under way, with Disney opting to build in previously-designated Conservation acreage and altering the entry to the park. Details are found in the "DHS Permit" thread: http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/dhs-permit.906729/


Animal Kingdom: Expansion beyond the current footprint of the park is constrained in every direction. To the south is guest parking, increase of which is limited by a large retention pond, access roads, an electrical substation, the WDW border, and Reedy Creek's basin. Westward lies a substantial backstage area and waterway; lengthy, enclosed access from the vicinity of Tusker House would be necessary to cross Savannah Circle and reach a large Marginally Suitable area, in the unlikely event Disney pursued that "strongly discouraged" use. To the northwest is the Kilimanjaro Safaris animal habitat with the WDW border not far beyond in Marginally Suitable territory. Swinging north is the aforementioned "AK North" area largely devoted to a tree farm and substantial backstage areas. Eastward lies a very large Conservation area and Reedy Creek's basin; it's highly unlikely that Disney would build there in the foreseeable future. If they did, lengthy, enclosed access from either side of Expedition Everest would be necessary to cross Savannah Circle.

On the other hand, the park's existing footprint includes a sizeable undeveloped area between Maharajah Jungle Trek and Rafiki's Planet Watch. A challenge for any new development in this area would be access that circumvents the track for the Rafiki train. Walking distances would be substantial from either the northern or southern ends of the area into its center. A possible access point west of Flights of Wonder would require an elevated, enclosed walkway through backstage areas very close to animal enclosures, an aesthetic risk. More likely access via the Rafiki complex would necessitate the train ride, which isn't a wildly popular prospect among returning Disney guests.

Depending on the nature of the Avatar facility currently under construction, it's possible that it will offer more open space than what Camp Minnie-Mickey offered. Of all the theme parks, AK offers the best possibility for an increased sense of walking space, but not without logistical challenges.

 

[danlb_2000]

I wonder what the long term plans are for the land north of Wild World of Sports? This is one of the largest single blocks of land that is suitable for construction.

 

[marni1971]

A little more clarification on park expansion possibility. All these have been proposed or planned:

Magic Kingdom

A small plot west of Crystal Palace (restaurant expansion never built)
South west of PotC show building
West of BTM
East of the Storybook Circus RR station
Between the skyway bathrooms and Carousel of Progress
Backstage south of Tomorrowland

Epcot

North of Energy, into parking lot
Between Land and Seas
Unused Showcase plots

Studios

South of park, by pushing the entrance drive due east after the toll plaza
Indy and into parking lot
Original backstage tour area
Between Theatre of the Stars and Hills Ampitheatre
Sunset Ranch

DAK

North of Kali, to Conservation Station (park is locked east and west by Reedy and Boggy Creeks)

 

[*Q*]

Epcot

North of Energy, into parking lot

What would they possibly build north of the Universe of Energy?? That seems like a strange spot to put something.

 

[matt9112]

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.

need to add second set of beamways....

 

[matt9112]

What would they possibly build north of the Universe of Energy?? That seems like a strange spot to put something.

one would hope they would use the wonders of life plot long before that...

 

[marni1971]

What would they possibly build north of the Universe of Energy?? That seems like a strange spot to put something.

Expansion of Futureworld.

It was always envisaged should the 1982 plots all be occupied they could expand the park boundary into there.

Slightly optimistic huh?

 

[matt9112]

Well that's just not true... If you plan to go during peek times (Easter, SB, Xmas, etc) it will be VERY crowded as it has been for decades. You can easily find times of the year where its not very crowded and have a fantastic time. Heck you can even go durning peek times and have a blast, just depends on the attitude and scheduling of the person.

yes and no IMO...we always go off peak and some areas can still be busy. The MK specifically is getting very crowded all year round. @PhotoDave219 research has brought this up. slower seasons are slowly disappearing.

 

[*Q*]

Expansion of Futureworld.

It was always envisaged should the 1982 plots all be occupied they could expand the park boundary into there.

Slightly optimistic huh?

Yes, it's a shame that they did not remain ambitious. Was there ever a specific concept for that plot?

 

[marni1971]

Yes, it's a shame that they did not remain ambitious. Was there ever a specific concept for that plot?

Not that I know of. All I know is it was the designated Futureworld expansion area.

 

[Tom P.]

Can we please please please have a Frozen themed resort where you can have the Oloff suite with a giant Oloff faces the bed while you sleep and if you push a button you hear "Do you wanna build a snooooowmaaaaaaan?" and then the A/C drops the temperature to 60F as if Elsa was in there herself? </sarcasm>

I'd take that just for the A/C! During our recent Art of Animation visit, I was just about driven mad by the thermostats that know better than the guest what temperature their room should be.

 

[michmousefan]

On the larger issue, I think we forget that there are many thousands of hotel rooms in the Orlando area that aren't on Disney property. Orlando is not going to run out of hotel rooms. Of course, Disney wants folks to stay with them - but overall, Disney having more or less rooms really doesn't affect park capacity and vice versa.

As to Star Wars, I think you will be blown away. There are going to be so many people who have never, or who haven't in a long time, taken a Disney vacation just to see it. It's pretty much the most unprecedented attraction/land addition that any Disney Park has ever had in terms of public desire for the theme, and a demonstrative public more than willing to shell out big bucks to be a part of.

If the Star Wars area blows people away — I also believe it will have such an effect, drawing titanic crowds on a daily basis — all Disney really has to do is offer some sort of "on-property" daily early entry perk if they want to boost attendance at resort(s). If the crowds are extreme (perhaps even to the extent that admission to the SW area is curtailed at times), then exclusive access if you stay at a disney resort will look all the more attractive.

 

[Macadamite85]

I wonder what the long term plans are for the land north of Wild World of Sports? This is one of the largest single blocks of land that is suitable for construction.

This is the "ESPN North" parcel described in the OP: Potential Hotel/Resort per Figure 3-10 of RCID's Comprehensive Plan 2020.

 

[Uncle Lupe]

We need build to expand not build to replace.

WDW has been billed as a vacation kingdom for the world and a right of passage for generations. Getting people to visit is not a problem but where do they all fit?

Phased closures during major and even minor holidays are the norm. The bean counters must cringe at the lost revenue of closing entrance to any park.

If useable space around the parks is limited will the expanded use of parking garages be implemented to facilitate expansion around HS and AK?

 

[Macadamite85]

A little more clarification on park expansion possibility.

Many thanks for your input! Now incorporated with post #104.

 

[WDWVolFan]

I'd take that just for the A/C! During our recent Art of Animation visit, I was just about driven mad by the thermostats that know better than the guest what temperature their room should be.

Had the same issue at Coronado earlier this year. If it wasn't for the ceiling fans I would have been hot the whole time in the room.

 

[danlb_2000]

...there's plenty of related info available straight from the Mouse's mouth, with opportunities for reasonable speculation. The following opinions stem from study of RCID documents, news articles, observation of Disney's past decisions, and logical extrapolation therefrom--with the full realization that nothing is set in stone.

Summary: There are multiple options for possible new resort sites available for Disney to build on without using wetland offsets. They probably aren't in a hurry to build in the near future anyway.

First, Disney's current game plan for new lodgings appears to focus upon existing flag-brand partners who build their hotels on land purchased (as opposed to ground-leased) from Disney, as with Four Seasons and at Flamingo Crossings.

Meanwhile, the never-built Wilderness/Buffalo Junction site between the Lodge and the Fort is the only large area planned for Hotel/Resort use that has yet to see resort construction. Disney has a clear tradition of repurpose/reuse, as with Art of Animation, which was the Epcot Center Ultralight Airpark before it was Pop Century: Legendary Years. It's a reasonable guess that the Junction will one day become the site of an official WDW resort.

On the other hand, the never-built Persian resort site has been a candidate resort location at least as recently as 1991. Situated off World Drive northeast of Space Mountain, the parcel is designated as Existing Development, indicating that its suitability is proven. The adjacent monorail line, once planned as a Resort Loop tie-in, would most likely retain its current function solely as access to the maintenance shop nearby. The area is far enough backstage that it's most likely earmarked for expansion of adjacent facilities or continuation of its current use as a staging area and CM-only parking lot, which might have substantial logistical value to Disney. It would be a considerable surprise to see a new resort go in here.

Beyond the currently designated Hotel/Resort and Existing Development areas...if Disney ever decides to undertake construction of new resorts in land areas designated for Mixed Use, RCID identifies many suitable options--several of which present intriguing challenges. There would be little if any need for Disney to offset use of marginally suitable wetland acreage if it chose to build on its internal suitable Mixed Use parcels.

Below is a list of areas within WDW that are designated as Suitable and as Mixed Use, which RCID defines as "innovative combinations of land use and development intensity." Source: RCID Comprehensive Plan 2020 (see Figures 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 3-3, and 3-10).

View attachment 115673

1.) AIRFIELD ENVIRONS: This very large parcel surrounding the former "Lake Buena Vista STOLport" airfield, between World Drive and Fort Wilderness, has plenty of resort space with existing road access via Vista Blvd and World Drive. The airstrip has not been used as such in some years, and it's currently a maintenance staging area. The parcel could easily hold a new resort with extensive associated recreational facilities. RCID shows the area as Potential Hotel/Resort/Commercial/Entertainment space, and it's prominently mentioned in their discussion of suitable land. This is arguably the most likely site for new resort construction in a Mixed Use area.

2.) STUDIOS WEST: This parcel west of HS, on the opposite side of World Drive, has sufficient space for a new resort--even consideering the contiguous canal and Marginally Suitable/Resource Management areas. Access via Buena Vista Drive appears to be already planned across from the Coronado Springs entrance. RCID indicates that the area is Potential Hotel/Resort space, and it's prominently mentioned in their discussion of suitable land. It's very likely that Disney will eventually undertake new resort construction here.

3.) ESPN NORTH: This very sizeable parcel has plenty of space for a resort and some sports facilities connecting to the existing ESPN complex, with an entry road already traced in from Victory Way. RCID indicates that the area is Potential Hotel/Resort space. A reason to guess otherwise is the stated purpose of the current and planned Flamingo Crossings hotels, which target the sports-tourism sector focused on ESPN. A resort here might be at cross purposes with that plan. Even so, it's large, available, and prominently mentioned in RCID's discussion of suitable land, making it a likely choice for future resort construction.

4.) OSCEOLA SOUTH: This site's acreage approximates the overall footprint of Wilderness Lodge, so a new resort could fit. An access road (Palmetto Place, off Victory Way) already exists, continuing back to the recently built laundry facility across Osceola Parkway from Pop Century. RCID considers the area (as well as the laundry facility) Potential Hotel/Resort/Commercial/Entertainment space, and it's prominently mentioned in their discussion of suitable land. But such use might conflict with the planned Flamingo Crossings sports-tourism focus, as with "ESPN North" above. It's hard to guess what Disney might build here, but there's a fair chance that eventually a resort could go in.

5.) VISTA SOUTH: This large parcel south of Fort Wilderness, on the opposite side of Vista Blvd, has much to recommend as a resort site. It's big enough and offers easy road access, with a good-sized natural area to inspire landscaping opportunities. If there's a downside to building anything here, it's not apparent. It's unclear why RCID doesn't show it as a Potential Hotel/Resort space, nor is it mentioned in their discussion of suitable land.

6.) MAGNOLIA NORTH: The parcel north of the Magnolia/Oak Trail golf complex is large enough for a resort, even though it's laced with smaller Marginally Suitable/Resource Management/Recreation areas. The likeliest path for road access from any resort buildings to Floridian Way is tight but manageable. The site is close enough to the monorail line that it would raise the question of a new stop on the Resort Loop, which would present several challenges. First, the extra stop between Grand Floridian and MK would likely diminish the monorail experience for guests eager to reach MK. Next, the logical site for a collocated monorail station is just west of the inlet where Electrical Water Pageant boats emerge into Seven Seas Lagoon; the prospect of new station construction (and huge walls) without disrupting current operations is daunting at best. Further, based on the configuration of the parcel, pedestrians would need to cover inconvenient distances and cross Floridian Way to reach the station. It's hard to see how Disney could make all that work well. Another golf course (or a golf-focused resort with bus-only transportation, like Shades of Green) would better fit the terrain but hardly seems compelling for a new Disney story. Despite the many inherent constraints here, the area is prominently mentioned in RCID's discussion of suitable land. On the other hand, RCID doesn't show the area as a Potential Hotel/Resort space.

7.) SEVEN SEAS EAST: The site of the once-planned, since-abandoned Venetian and Mediterranean resorts on the eastern shore of Seven Seas Lagoon is roughly the same size as the total Wilderness Lodge footprint (including Villas) just across World Drive, after the constraints of roadway and monorail track are considered. Although this site is a better monorail-resort candidate overall than "Magnolia North" described above, a new monorail stop here would similarly bog down the Resort Loop. Likely road access extending Wilderness Road across World Drive would complicate traffic flow given TTC-bound bus traffic on Topiary Lane. Reportedly, the land's suitability was in question as recently as the 1990s; it's unclear whether such questions have been resolved or how expensive any soil-quality mitigation efforts might be. It's a fair guess that executive whim will determine whether a resort is ever built here. RCID doesn't indicate that the area is a Potential Hotel/Resort space.

8.) WOODPECKER NORTH: This unusually positioned site's acreage approximates the overall footprint of Wilderness Lodge, so a resort would fit, even if the prospect appears counterintuitive. At first glance, the parcel resembles a blister attached to the westbound shoulder of Epcot Center Drive as it bends around the EP parking lot north of Woodpecker Lane. Any access from the principal arterial road would reduce safety and impede the road's level of service, a clear non-option. But close-in zooming on RCID's Future Land Use Map reveals an intriguing element: the possibility of planned access to the parcel from a Hotel/Resort-designated area on the opposite side of Bonnet Creek. Logically, such access would be achieved by a bridge similar to the ones farther south along the waterway. This parcel would be an odd but interesting candidate for resort construction. RCID doesn't show it as a Potential Hotel/Resort space.

9.) Epcot Resorts North: [deleted due to use of parcel for solar-panel Mickey head]

10.) ROYAL OAK SOUTH: This site's acreage is small for a resort--slightly less than the Wilderness Lodge's footprint minus its Villas--but it's larger than the Flamingo Crossings area that has room for three standard hotels, two of which are currently under construction. Extending south from the mobile homes dotted around Royal Oak Court, along the eastern side of Buena Vista Drive and backing to Hyatt's Grand Cypress property in a stair-step shape, the site is protected from roadside view/noise by a lengthy berm. Access is already suggested in the form of Disney Vacation Club Way, extended across Buena Vista Drive as a gravel path. According to Google Earth images there are recent signs of building materials behind the berm, but that could be staging for the new Orange County sheriff's facility under construction across the road. As recently as 1991 this area was earmarked for construction of a support facility--its most likely future use, if any. It's difficult to guess where a detention pond might be located, even as a temporary measure during construction. Chances for a new resort here are remote at best. The area isn't indicated as a Potential Hotel/Resort space.

11.) AK NORTH: This large backstage parcel can be reached only from Western Way, a principal arterial road that lacks the safe access afforded by minor arterial roads, collectors, and other roads (the means by which guests access all current Disney resorts). Further, Disney currently uses the area for a tree farm and other backstage facilities. All told, it's a very unlikely candidate for new resort construction. Even so, RCID indicates that the area is Potential Hotel/Resort/Commercial/Entertainment space; the Entertainment aspect, probably via expansion of AK backstage areas, is the most likely potential use. In their discussion of suitable land RCID mentions an area that could be this parcel, but their meaning is unclear due to a possible directional error.

Finally, there are several Suitable/Mixed Use parcels of land that are of sufficient size but very unlikely to be considered for new resort construction, for various reasons. None of them are shown as Potential Hotel/Resort areas.

Northwest of AKL: This fair-sized, sprawling parcel to the west and north of Kidani Village fits in with Disney's sometime urge to jam facilities into its farthest corners. Depending on interpretation, it's possible that RCID identifies the parcel in their discussion of suitable land. But its current designation as an animal care area fits well with the AKL savanna. Any new hotel construction here would likely be an expansion of the AK Villas.

Southwest of Lake Mabel: This fair-sized parcel is suitable land prominently mentioned in RCID's discussion of same. It's mostly surrounded by private property and Lake Mabel, as well as two interconnecting canals with contiguous power easements, all of which practically strands the area in development limbo. Access between the parcel and central WDW would have to traverse overhead transmission lines, which present at least an aesthetic challenge for Disney; safe clearance under the lines could entail prohibitive constraints for construction crews and equipment. Even if access were achieved, the Fort Wilderness campsites, the Tranquilo Golf Club (Four Seasons), and Golden Oak properties essentially block any potential new roads. A more plausible scenario--though still unlikely--would be for Disney to build an access road on Marginally Suitable land (in conjunction with the wetland-use offset process) along the south bank of canal L-107, westward toward another parcel...

...North of Bay Lake: This parcel surrounds the mobile homes dotted around Bay Court and is accessible from Reams Road. It also stretches toward the Central Shops via a slender connection. Overall, it's of a fair size, but the functional area is reduced by about half due to the mobile homes, whose residents would likely be disturbed by any resort activity. Use of the parcel as a Lake Mabel/Reams Road connector via Bay Court, circumventing the mobile homes, is technically feasible. Even less likely but also technically feasible would be a bridge to the former Persian resort site and thence World Drive. But it's very unlikely that Disney would undertake such complexities to build a resort as far backstage as is the whole area near Reams Road and the Central Shops. The most likely use of this area is for expansion of adjacent facilities.

Car Care Center Environs: This small parcel comprises two almost-connected sections that offer barely enough space to support a smallish resort about the size of BoardWalk Inn. There would be meager aesthetic potential to lodgings overlooking a gas station, a rental car agency, and an electrical substation, even if there were some way to work in a Radiator Springs angle (already done at Art of Animation). The most likely use of this area is for expansion of adjacent facilities or roads.

Northeast of All-Stars: This parcel of barely sufficient size for resort construction lies along the ramp between Osceola Parkway and World Drive (both principal arterial roads), which would preclude easy and safe road access. More important, there's what looks like a pump station near the middle of the area; also, there could be an adjacent underground reservoir, which would preclude surface construction. It's a safe guess that no resort will ever be built here.

All other Suitable/Mixed Use land parcels within the RCID are part of Flamingo Crossings, are adjacent to backstage facilities, or are too small/remote to warrant consideration for a future resort site.

It could be that one day Disney will build on substantial parts of its internal wetlands acreage, counterbalanced by the outlying Disney Preserve and the recent Mira Lago purchase nearby. But logically it's difficult to project that happening in the foreseeable future--more likely it would occur in smaller portions associated with various construction projects, as is currently the case at Disney Springs. For the time being, it looks like Disney will try to maintain 90%-plus capacity in its existing resorts and shepherd Flamingo Crossings hotel construction while it completes Disney Springs, Avatar/Pandora, and the Studios enhancements.

Any differing views? Any additional information? All comments/corrections are welcome!

You can eliminate the bottom half of "Studios West" since that is now becoming a drainage pond.