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

[TP2000]

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
View attachment 600139View attachment 600140

As for DTD, they've got to realize that retail is not the wave of the future. To get people out of their homes and away from their 70 inch 4K screens, they've got to offer things that can't be delivered via Amazon or Uber Eats or streamed via the TV. That means entertainment and upscale dining experiences.

They've purposely allowed the DTD footprint to shrink, and that was before Covid. Now? The 1990's footprint of DTD makes even less sense than it did in 2018. I imagine they are facing the same basic realization with the huge amount of retail space at Disney Springs too, but we'll keep this to Anaheim.

If you slice off the abandoned end of DTD (ESPNZone, Rainforest Cafe and AMC Megatheater) you get a current DTD footprint that makes a lot more sense for the 2020's and beyond than the original circa 1997 footprint does. They don't need it, so cut it off and turn it into theme park.

That hypothesis doesn't explain the new DVC Tower they are building at the Disneyland Hotel though. And there will still likely be a rebuilt Disneyland Hotel as an island on that space a decade from now, as the secondary "premium" hotel offering for DLR.

But the silver lining of the Colglazier Blowup with Anaheim, followed quickly by the 14 month long Covid closure and disaster, gives them an opportunity to really rethink how they're going to use that big superblock of property for the next 50 years.

What made sense just a few short years ago has been destroyed culturally and societally now. Disneyland Forward is, luckily for whomever branded it that way, the way forward for them through the next 50 years.

 

[October82]

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.

One thing that "Disneyland Forward" shows pretty convincingly is that lack of land is not a problem in Anaheim - the opportunity cost isn't attractions or park gates, it's theme parks and hotels or surface parking lots.

I just don't buy that any of the arguments in this thread are compelling reasons not to pursue a third park in Anaheim. I'm sure there are reasons not to, I just don't think these are them.

 

[October82]

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?

These is a weird sentence to me. It's like saying, besides all the reasons why a third park would benefit everyone, what reasons are there for building a third park?

What reasons were there for building third and fourth gates in Florida? They weren't landlocked and could have expanded Epcot and the Magic Kingdom with very little limit. They didn't for the simple reason that it is easier to market a third park than it is to market a new land. You make a lot more money by selling an additional day of ticket, additional hotel rooms, and the rest than you do by selling a more expensive single park ticket.

A third park is an expensive upfront cost. Probably $3-$4 billion. Expanding Disneyland/DCA - if that's really an option, and I don't think anything like the concept art will happen - amortizes that cost over a longer time. That's the reason Disney might prefer to do that.

 

[Disney Irish]

These is a weird sentence to me. It's like saying, besides all the reasons why a third park would benefit everyone, what reasons are there for building a third park?

What reasons were there for building third and fourth gates in Florida? They weren't landlocked and could have expanded Epcot and the Magic Kingdom with very little limit. They didn't for the simple reason that it is easier to market a third park than it is to market a new land. You make a lot more money by selling an additional day of ticket, additional hotel rooms, and the rest than you do by selling a more expensive single park ticket.

A third park is an expensive upfront cost. Probably $3-$4 billion. Expanding Disneyland/DCA - if that's really an option, and I don't think anything like the concept art will happen - amortizes that cost over a longer time. That's the reason Disney might prefer to do that.

At the end of the day both expanding the existing 2 Parks or making a 3rd gate out of the same land would accomplish the same goal, more theme park real estate for guests, more revenue for Disney, and more tax revenue for Anaheim. The assumption that the 3rd gate is the only way to accomplish these goals instead of expansion is shortsighted. Because all the things you've outlined with the exception of the additional ticket revenue can be accomplished by expanding the 2 existing Parks.

The upfront cost of both of these endeavors would be expensive either way they go.

 

[DLR92]

The Toy Story lot with Katella lot is roughly 80 acres together. It a generous footprint for a park. But when you factor the apartment complex that borders the property. It won’t leave Disney to have much land to develop with for a theme park.

 

[October82]

At the end of the day both expanding the existing 2 Parks or making a 3rd gate out of the same land would accomplish the same goal, more theme park real estate for guests, more revenue for Disney, and more tax revenue for Anaheim.

No, I really don't think it would achieve the same goal. A third gate will generate more revenue than expanding the existing parks, but also represents a significantly higher upfront investment.

The assumption that the 3rd gate is the only way to accomplish these goals instead of expansion is shortsighted.

On the contrary, failure to invest in a third park is short-sighted. Most of the DLR's problems today can be traced to decades of inadequate and inconsistent investment in the resort. A third park would go along way to alleviating those longstanding problems.

The upfront cost of both of these endeavors would be expensive either way they go.

A third park is many times more expensive than incremental expansions.

 

[October82]

The Toy Story lot with Katella lot is roughly 80 acres together. It a generous footprint for a park. But when you factor the apartment complex that borders the property. It won’t leave Disney to have much land to develop with for a theme park.

A park on the TSL site probably looks like a upscaled version of what is being built in Tokyo as "Fantasy Springs". Show buildings surrounding open space. Minimal on-site and shared off-site infrastructure. Possibly a hotel acting as a visual barrier and buffer.

 

[Disney Irish]

No, I really don't think it would achieve the same goal. A third gate will generate more revenue than expanding the existing parks, but also represents a significantly higher upfront investment.



On the contrary, failure to invest in a third park is short-sighted. Most of the DLR's problems today can be traced to decades of inadequate and inconsistent investment in the resort. A third park would go along way to alleviating those longstanding problems.



A third park is many times more expensive than incremental expansions.

I understand your points, I just feel that expanding the existing footprints of DL/DCA would accomplish the same goals without having to go all the way to a 3rd gate. This topic of a 3rd gate has been debated on this forum many times before. I've even been on the side of a 3rd gate. But once DisneyForward was announced, the idea of potentially expanding DL/DCA changed my opinion. As it was never an option before due to being landlocked. Now that its no longer a blocking factor if this goes through, so many more options are on the table.

Either way we're many years out before ANY sort of full on project with ANY sort of details are announced. So this is all a bit premature anyways.

 

[el_super]

I just don't buy that any of the arguments in this thread are compelling reasons not to pursue a third park in Anaheim. I'm sure there are reasons not to, I just don't think these are them.

The biggest issue is that the ROI just isn't there. An entire third gate, built up to justify an admission cost, would be expensive. Disneyland is so reliant on discounted local admissions, that it would be hard to shove another million or more APs through the gates, just to recover their costs. Length of stay isn't really bound to increase all that much either. People coming to Disenyland for long three day weekends has been the norm for a long time. 2 Days DL and 1 Day DCA. Adding a third gate would probably cannibalize one of those (and most like it would be DCA). For people that are making 5 to 7 day trips to SoCal, there will still be a lot of competition between other local landmarks and tourist destinations.

Adding more hotel rooms might help, but there again Disney is sunk by local competition. Disneyland has 1/2 the number of parks as Walt Disney World, but only about 1/10th the number of hotel rooms.

Which also leads to... if are you looking to make an extended Disney trip anywhere, why wouldn't you choose Florida? They have more parks, more hotels to choose from, and as long as airfare is cheap, they are primed to be the sole breadwinner for Disney in the US. If adding a 7th US Disney park in California ends up cannibalizing some of WDW's attendance (and hotel revenue), that would be bad for Disney.

Expansion in California could still make sense, but in the weird nebulous way they are pitching it: instead of adding a whole third gate, add an attraction or two, retail/dining/hotel, wall it off from the rest of the parks and charge either a separate (really low fee) for just that area (basically a micro gate), or have the land be open to the public and charge per-ride (pay to play).

There's a lot of solid evidence that this might be what they're looking at. Going all the way back to the rumors that Galaxy's Edge might be considered a separate gate, to the technological push to get Lightning Lane and individual attraction charges up and running.

So imagine it more like Downtown Disney but with a Space Mountain off to the side that you can pay $10-$20 to ride once, without having to pay a full price admission to Disneyland. Depending on where you can organize the gates, you could even make it part of the Disneyland admission from Opening-6pm and then free for all after 6pm.

That gives them greater flexibility to expand gradually and recoup costs quicker, than a full gate would.

 

[October82]

The biggest issue is that the ROI just isn't there. An entire third gate, built up to justify an admission cost, would be expensive. [...]

I really appreciate the lengthy post, but I don't think any of us are able to make that claim one way or the other. Since Disney hasn't pursued a third park - yet - it seems that they don't think the ROI is there now, in comparison to other avenues of expansion. But I don't think there's any reason to suppose the ROI won't be there in the future. And it is certainly the case that a third park would alleviate the - now decades long - capacity pressures in Anaheim.

Expansion in California could still make sense, but in the weird nebulous way they are pitching it: instead of adding a whole third gate, add an attraction or two, retail/dining/hotel, wall it off from the rest of the parks and charge either a separate (really low fee) for just that area (basically a micro gate), or have the land be open to the public and charge per-ride (pay to play).

This is an important point that really needs to be clear. They are pitching this as a way to change their planning obligations, not because they think anything like what has been shown will ever be built. It might - but I'll personally be shocked if it happens.

There's a lot of solid evidence that this might be what they're looking at. Going all the way back to the rumors that Galaxy's Edge might be considered a separate gate, to the technological push to get Lightning Lane and individual attraction charges up and running.

So imagine it more like Downtown Disney but with a Space Mountain off to the side that you can pay $10-$20 to ride once, without having to pay a full price admission to Disneyland. Depending on where you can organize the gates, you could even make it part of the Disneyland admission from Opening-6pm and then free for all after 6pm.

That gives them greater flexibility to expand gradually and recoup costs quicker, than a full gate would.

Exactly - incremental expansion is about amortization. But that's a very different reason than the speculation in this thread so far. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of using the Toy Story Land lot for a third gate in Anaheim. It's a large, expensive, and long-term investment. That makes it difficult from a risk perspective. It doesn't make it an implausible idea.

 

[Disney Irish]

I really appreciate the lengthy post, but I don't think any of us are able to make that claim one way or the other. Since Disney hasn't pursued a third park - yet - it seems that they don't think the ROI is there now, in comparison to other avenues of expansion. But I don't think there's any reason to suppose the ROI won't be there in the future. And it is certainly the case that a third park would alleviate the - now decades long - capacity pressures in Anaheim.




This is an important point that really needs to be clear. They are pitching this as a way to change their planning obligations, not because they think anything like what has been shown will ever be built. It might - but I'll personally be shocked if it happens.




Exactly - incremental expansion is about amortization. But that's a very different reason than the speculation in this thread so far. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of using the Toy Story Land lot for a third gate in Anaheim. It's a large, expensive, and long-term investment. That makes it difficult from a risk perspective. It doesn't make it an implausible idea.

Except in reality the idea they are "pitching" here is not to use Toy Story Lot for any sort of 3rd gate, but rather a new hotel/shopping district with maybe some themed experience like a VR space. And any new theme park area to be on the west side, whether that be a separate 3rd gate or just expansion of the existing 2 parks remains to be seen.

But this idea that Toy Story Lot is still slated for some future 3rd gate needs to be let go, it just isn't going to happen. At one time it made sense when it was the only major area left for development. But with this "pitch" they are fundamentally changing the entire layout of the Resort District, which allows for so many more possibilities.

So I understand yours and others desire for a 3rd gate, but until there is really a plan that is presented that actually shows a 3rd gate I highly doubt a 3rd gate is in the cards at this point.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I can’t see Disney building a third park in Anaheim, the opportunity cost is too high.

Why spend a couple billion on a third park that potentially poaches guests from your existing parks when you could use the same couple billion to build a park in Texas and add a million new APs and a whole new fanbase?

That doesn’t even factor in the advantages of spreading out the risk, prior to DL having to stay closed for a year I thought a third park was a possibility but now I think the regional risk is too high.

Expanding the parks allows for increased attendance at a much lower cost.

 

[October82]

Except in reality the idea they are "pitching" here is not to use Toy Story Lot for any sort of 3rd gate, but rather a new hotel/shopping district with maybe some themed experience like a VR space. And any new theme park area to be on the west side, whether that be a separate 3rd gate or just expansion of the existing 2 parks remains to be seen.

But this idea that Toy Story Lot is still slated for some future 3rd gate needs to be let go, it just isn't going to happen. At one time it made sense when it was the only major area left for development. But with this "pitch" they are fundamentally changing the entire layout of the Resort District, which allows for so many more possibilities.

So I understand yours and others desire for a 3rd gate, but until there is really a plan that is presented that actually shows a 3rd gate I highly doubt a 3rd gate is in the cards at this point.

This is a marketing ploy for a changing in a zoning ordinances. That's it.

 

[October82]

I can’t see Disney building a third park in Anaheim, the opportunity cost is too high.

Why spend a couple billion on a third park that potentially poaches guests from your existing parks when you could use the same couple billion to build a park in Texas and add a million new APs and a whole new fanbase?

That doesn’t even factor in the advantages of spreading out the risk, prior to DL having to stay closed for a year I thought a third park was a possibility but now I think the regional risk is too high.

Expanding the parks allows for increased attendance at a much lower cost.

The US market probably can't support more than two resorts. There's no doubt that if Disney expands further, it will be in Anaheim or Orlando. A new resort in the middle of the country simply takes guests away from Anaheim or Orlando. And no, it doesn't reduce risk in any meaningful way.

A third gate in Anaheim increases spending per guest. It's not about attendance - it's about what guests spend and where.

The more compelling argument is that Disney doesn't see potential in either Anaheim or Orlando. There's far more money to be made in mainland China.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is a marketing ploy for a changing in a zoning ordinances. That's it.

If you say so, but check the request for rezoning Toy Story Lot. It’s not for theme park usage. So it’s more than just a marketing ploy for that rezone.

 

[October82]

If you say so, but check the request for rezoning Toy Story Lot. It’s not for theme park usage. So it’s more than just a marketing ploy for that rezone.

This is not correct. The Toy Story Lot would be zoned for theme park (and other uses) going forward. What would change is the elimination of a conditional use permit that currently applies to that land. "Disneyland Forward" really is just a marketing ploy for that zoning change. In the abstract, there's nothing wrong with that. But no one should read these documents and think they have anything to do with what Disney may ultimately do.

This is really about the failure of the Eastern gateway project and local politics.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is not correct. The Toy Story Lot would be zoned for theme park (and other uses) going forward. What would change is the elimination of a conditional use permit that currently applies to that land. "Disneyland Forward" really is just a marketing ploy for that zoning change. In the abstract, there's nothing wrong with that. But no one should read these documents and think they have anything to do with what Disney may ultimately do.

This is really about the failure of the Eastern gateway project and local politics.

Again if you say so…

Let’s put it this way, if Toy Story Lot really gets turned into a real 3rd Gate and not a mixed use entertainment venue I’ll buy everyone on this site their first ticket.

 

[October82]

Again if you say so…

Let’s put it this way, if Toy Story Lot really gets turned into a real 3rd Gate and not a mixed use entertainment venue I’ll buy everyone on this site their first ticket.

I'll hold you to that. And buy you a beverage of your choice!

 

[Bullseye1967]

The US market probably can't support more than two resorts. There's no doubt that if Disney expands further, it will be in Anaheim or Orlando. A new resort in the middle of the country simply takes guests away from Anaheim or Orlando. And no, it doesn't reduce risk in any meaningful way.

A third gate in Anaheim increases spending per guest. It's not about attendance - it's about what guests spend and where.

The more compelling argument is that Disney doesn't see potential in either Anaheim or Orlando. There's far more money to be made in mainland China.

That is possibly the only post of yours I have ever liked. That is the truth for now.

 

[el_super]

A new(ish) wrinkle maybe? Blog Mickey is reporting that Chapek said the following regarding the Galactic Starcruise:

If this works, and I have every reason to believe it is, it’s going to be the model of what our hospitality can be in the future. Not just functional hotels as nice as they are, and as lightly themed as they are, but for people who want to go deeper, this could represent the next generation of hospitality in our resorts.

Bob Chapek, Disney CEO

So maybe they are planning a boutique resort concept that might include rides/role playing adventures that are entirely exclusive to a new hotel?

Of course with what I've seen from the Galactic Starcruise currently, there's no reason they couldn't get away with just building one of those in the former DTD parking lot, and shuttling people to Batuu.