Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 and Scoping Meeting for the DisneylandForward Project

[Darkbeer1]

Pretty short meeting. Took video and uploading it now.

Nothing surprising, just asking for public comments about the environmental report that has to be done.

SEIR DisneylandForward Video - 11/4/2021 - Darkbeer

Hi there, I am David Michael, and this is my photo album.... A hobby gone bad, I am now a Theme Park Reporter and Photographer (in my spare time). I hope you enjoy the photos, and thanks for visiting. If you see me at a park, please come over and say hello! If you want to send an e-mail, you...

darkbeer.smugmug.com

 

[RollerCoaster]

People can speculate all day long, but it's doubtful that either Disneyland or California Adventure will be expanded across Disneyland Drive. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.

At this point, if Disney feels there is a need they'd be better off building a 3rd park. There is still opportunity to grow attendance within the existing two parks with attraction additions.

 

[MisterPenguin]

People can speculate all day long, but it's doubtful that either Disneyland or California Adventure will be expanded across Disneyland Drive. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.

At this point, if Disney feels there is a need they'd be better off building a 3rd park. There is still opportunity to grow attendance within the existing two parks with attraction additions.

A third park is inefficient. It has a lot of duplicated expenses.

A third park would be a DCA killer. The only way it could compete against DL if it opened with over 20 rides, and that ain't happening. And even if it did, in order to siphon off DL guests, it would destroy DCA.

The smart move is to expand both parks, but giving more love to DCA.

 

[RollerCoaster]

A third park is inefficient. It has a lot of duplicated expenses.

A third park would be a DCA killer. The only way it could compete against DL if it opened with over 20 rides, and that ain't happening. And even if it did, in order to siphon off DL guests, it would destroy DCA.

The smart move is to expand both parks, but giving more love to DCA.

Give me some examples of what you perceive to be a "duplicated" expense.

You can't back up your statement "it would destroy DCA". That's an irrational conclusion. Basically, you're arguing that nothing within DCA as it stands is worthy enough to continue to attract guests to visit if they build the 3rd gate. That's simply not true.

You don't need to siphon guests from Disneyland either to justify a 3rd park either.

The point of a 3rd gate or really any expansion is to increase the capacity of the total number of guests you can accommodate. In Anaheim it would be to increase the length and make the resort more appealing for a multi-day trip.

It's uncertain what they're going to build, but a decade or two from now I think all of you who think it will be an expansion of the existing parks will likely be wrong. I'm not convinced it will be a 3rd theme park in the traditional sense. It may be a hybrid of attractions, lodging, and shops. It may be gateless.

 

[britain]

Give me some examples of what you perceive to be a "duplicated" expense.

You can't back up your statement "it would destroy DCA". That's an irrational conclusion. Basically, you're arguing that nothing within DCA as it stands is worthy enough to continue to attract guests to visit if they build the 3rd gate. That's simply not true.

You don't need to siphon guests from Disneyland either to justify a 3rd park either.

The point of a 3rd gate or really any expansion is to increase the capacity of the total number of guests you can accommodate. In Anaheim it would be to increase the length and make the resort more appealing for a multi-day trip.

It's uncertain what they're going to build, but a decade or two from now I think all of you who think it will be an expansion of the existing parks will likely be wrong. I'm not convinced it will be a 3rd theme park in the traditional sense. It may be a hybrid of attractions, lodging, and shops. It may be gateless.

Everything associated with the gates: ticket booths, Turnstiles, guest services.

Although, I will grant you, what defines a theme park is in flux, you could close off galaxies edge, and require a unique ticket on your smart phone, and there’s your third park.

 

[TP2000]

People can speculate all day long, but it's doubtful that either Disneyland or California Adventure will be expanded across Disneyland Drive. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.

At this point, if Disney feels there is a need they'd be better off building a 3rd park. There is still opportunity to grow attendance within the existing two parks with attraction additions.

I disagree.

The relatively compact two-park Resort model in the suburbs of a major world capitol is one they have duplicated around the world in Tokyo and Paris, and planned for in Hong Kong and Shanghai. (Political problems with the Communists have dented Hong Kong's future, perhaps permanently, but Shanghai is still planned for a second park by next decade). When they open the next park property in India, it will be set up the same way.

The two-park Resort model with a handful of hotels and a shopping/dining district attached is what works for them. Anaheim just needs more land to expand it's two-park system.

Adding a third theme park is not cost effective, and in Anaheim it's logistically very difficult.

We have to remember that Walt Disney World's multi-park sprawling model is a total one-off, an aberration. WDW will never be duplicated again, and can't be used as a model for anything except WDW.

 

[DLR92]

I have been a supporter of a third park for Anaheim. But now I see as everyone else is seeing, it not on Disney cards or Anaheim either.

I think toy story lot would be the next development for new Disney hotels and shopping.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Build a strong enough third park and it will succeed. People are still drawn to quality- especially at current ticket prices.

 

[TP2000]

Build a strong enough third park and it will succeed. People are still drawn to quality- especially at current ticket prices.

I can't disagree with that.

But the realist in me knows that there won't be a third park in Anaheim. Any more than there will be a third park in Tokyo, or Paris, or Shanghai. Heck, I'd be surprised to see a 5th park in WDW anytime this century.

If anything, the Disneyland Forward rezoning plan just opens up that entire superblock south of Pixar Pals to Katella as theme park expansion for the two existing parks. While it simultaneously opens up new land for hotel and retail/dining space on the existing Toy Story parking lot.

In short, they move the existing 1,500 room hotel occupancy from west of Disneyland Drive down to south of Katella Avenue, and expand that occupancy by maybe 1,500 additional rooms long-term. This is all looking at 2030 and beyond.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

I can't disagree with that.

But the realist in me knows that there won't be a third park in Anaheim. Any more than there will be a third park in Tokyo, or Paris, or Shanghai.

Shanghai needs a second park first before we start speculating about a third park never happening.

 

[TP2000]

Shanghai needs a second park first before we start speculating about a third park never happening.

True. But let's not pretend they plan these "Resorts" with third theme parks in mind. They know all they need is two parks plus a collection of hotels and a shopping mall in the suburbs of a giant world capitol.

Shanghai's second park goes here, in Phase Two...

 

[October82]

Everything associated with the gates: ticket booths, Turnstiles, guest services.

Although, I will grant you, what defines a theme park is in flux, you could close off galaxies edge, and require a unique ticket on your smart phone, and there’s your third park.

These aren't substantial investments. We're not talking about completely independent infrastructure for a third park on the Toy Story Lot. There might have been a more substantive argument when much of the backstage infrastructure for both DL and DCA was 'behind' DL. Now that much of that is moved offsite, 'duplicated infrastructure' isn't going to be a major concern. The marginal cost to operate the third park isn't a barrier to building a third park if it otherwise makes sense.

It's also not plausible that a third gate would be a 'DCA killer'. The parks don't compete with one another in any sort of traditional sense. Whether enough guests would visit all three parks on each visit to justify the investment is hard to know, but I seriously doubt there is any concern about a third gate 'competing' against the existing parks.

 

[britain]

These aren't substantial investments.

No they aren’t, but it’s opportunity cost.

Think of it this way: let’s say they wanted to make Disneyland and California Adventure one park. If they rebuilt the necessary gate stuff on the east of the central esplanade (in between La Brea Bakery and the Tram Dropoff) then you could fit a ‘lands’ worth of rides, restaurants, and shops in the space you freed up.

It’s not just the actual services, it’s the buffers!

I’d rather have another land than yet another park entrance.

 

[el_super]

It's uncertain what they're going to build, but a decade or two from now I think all of you who think it will be an expansion of the existing parks will likely be wrong. I'm not convinced it will be a 3rd theme park in the traditional sense. It may be a hybrid of attractions, lodging, and shops. It may be gateless.

It won't be a third theme park. Anaheim can't support that level of attendance, and I am strongly in the camp with others who suggest that a third park will do nothing but siphon attendance of the (mostly) local visitors from the other two parks.

My guess on what is coming is a microgate/mixed used venue that would mix concepts of Downtown Disney and Pay-Per-Ride attractions.

If Disney was serious about expanding the parks/building another park, they would simply be asking for the zoning to be changed to theme park. That's not what they're doing at all. They're using the promise of "additional attraction space" to request the right to build whatever they want on that space, be in entertainment, dining or retail.

Another big clue is that they are giving up their biggest piece of contiguous land in Anaheim, not for a theme park, but for a shopping district. They've been saying for 20+ years now that land would be earmarked for another theme park, so to turn around and say "No, that's alright, we don't want it" is a pretty telling sign of where they think their business is going.

 

[RollerCoaster]

It won't be a third theme park. Anaheim can't support that level of attendance, and I am strongly in the camp with others who suggest that a third park will do nothing but siphon attendance of the (mostly) local visitors from the other two parks.

If Disney was serious about expanding the parks/building another park, they would simply be asking for the zoning to be changed to theme park.

Another big clue is that they are giving up their biggest piece of contiguous land in Anaheim, not for a theme park, but for a shopping district. They've been saying for 20+ years now that land would be earmarked for another theme park, so to turn around and say "No, that's alright, we don't want it" is a pretty telling sign of where they think their business is going.

I'm not going to argue that it will be a third theme park because I believe it will be more than likely be mixed-use and not an expansion of the existing parks either. However, your second sentence is completely wrong. Anaheim can support more attendance. Disney can definitely build to accommodate more demand.

I disagree with your conclusion that if it were a third theme park they would simply ask to zone it as theme park. I believe Disney wants to get the city out of the picture entirely in terms of what they do moving forward. The recent events were damaging. They have good reason to take this direction even if their intent is to build a third park.

 

[RollerCoaster]

Everything associated with the gates: ticket booths, Turnstiles, guest services.

Although, I will grant you, what defines a theme park is in flux, you could close off galaxies edge, and require a unique ticket on your smart phone, and there’s your third park.

You offer lousy examples. There are cost-saving benefits to having neighboring or nearby parks, but the fact that you have to have ticket booths, turnstiles, and guest services in each is a terrible argument against another gate. There is a direct correlation between those services and attendance. If the park's a success then does it really matter that you have to staff those positions?

People always love to make the argument that Disneyland California Adventure should be one park. It's a fun debate, but the fact remains Disney commands a much higher gate price because the parks are separate. Had they combined them at some point after opening there would've been some payroll savings by eliminating turnstiles and possibly combining guest services into one park, but those savings would've been more than offset by the loss in revenue because the gate price would be much lower.

More than ever before Disney is really separating Disneyland and California Adventure through pricing, park-hopping changes, and reservations.

 

[el_super]

I'm not going to argue that it will be a third theme park because I believe it will be more than likely be mixed-use and not an expansion of the existing parks either. However, your second sentence is completely wrong. Anaheim can support more attendance. Disney can definitely build to accommodate more demand.

Anaheim can't support two parks, let alone three. Disneyland's reliance on discount admissions and annual passes shows that the gate revenue isn't there to justify another park. Even in some magic world where Disneyland wasn't so reliant on discounted local admissions, they would still be in direct competition with Florida, and in that their four theme parks would still be a better value than three full parks here.

I disagree with your conclusion that if it were a third theme park they would simply ask to zone it as theme park.

Why? Zoning for another park would actually be pretty well supported locally and is a far easier ask of the city, than the nebulous Disneyland Forever concept. Disney is pushing that concept because they don't want to commit to a full theme park, and yet are all too eager to push the idea of additional attractions to get what they want.

Asking for another park, would be easy. Asking for additional entertainment/retail/hotel space would probably be harder as it would be in direct competition with other local businesses and Anaheim/OC is already flush with concepts for these mixed use entertainment centers (hello OC Vibe and Angel Stadium and Garden walk).

 

[Disney Irish]

People can speculate all day long, but it's doubtful that either Disneyland or California Adventure will be expanded across Disneyland Drive. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.

You make this statement but then provide no context. Why doesn't it make sense? What about the expansion of both parks across DL Dr. wouldn't be to the benefit of Disney, Anaheim, and Guests overall?

At this point, if Disney feels there is a need they'd be better off building a 3rd park.

Again why? Besides the additional revenue of another ticket, what would be the benefit to Disney, Anaheim, and Guests overall by adding a 3rd park versus accomplishing the ultimately the same thing by expanding the footprints of the existing two Parks?

There is still opportunity to grow attendance within the existing two parks with attraction additions.

You are aware that Disneyland and DCA are both landlocked currently right? And while there are still small pockets of areas within the existing two parks footprints that can be developed, the amount of available zoned land within that landlocked footprint will run out very shortly. This is part of the reason why this DisneyForward plan is being pitched, to expand available contiguous area within the resort for Disney to use, plus rezone the Toy Store Parking Lot for mixed use.

So whether they expand the existing two parks across DL Dr., or use that land to build a 3rd park doesn't really matter at this point. The whole point is to get it approved so then they have it available to use in the future anyway they see fit.

 

[DLR92]

While both parks are landlock in development…but deep down I am not impressed of the idea to expand westward past of Disneyland Dr for both parks. I liked the original idea of west end being reserved for hotels and shopping development.

But I know Disney see to reverse the idea of using the west end for park use and allow toy story lot be the desired hotel/shopping development.

 

[socalifornian]

I can't disagree with that.

But the realist in me knows that there won't be a third park in Anaheim. Any more than there will be a third park in Tokyo, or Paris, or Shanghai. Heck, I'd be surprised to see a 5th park in WDW anytime this century.

If anything, the Disneyland Forward rezoning plan just opens up that entire superblock south of Pixar Pals to Katella as theme park expansion for the two existing parks. While it simultaneously opens up new land for hotel and retail/dining space on the existing Toy Story parking lot.

In short, they move the existing 1,500 room hotel occupancy from west of Disneyland Drive down to south of Katella Avenue, and expand that occupancy by maybe 1,500 additional rooms long-term. This is all looking at 2030 and beyond.

Wow if they do that we’d actually have an extra ~20 acres of potential park space than if we got a hypothetical park 3 at Toy Story. They still don’t know what to do with that side of dtd either so that’s no loss