But sometimes it doesn't make financial sense to add on. If you have attractions that are under performing it may make more sense to replace them with something that would do better, even if this requires a temporary loss of capacity.
True, but in a park like DHS which is bursting at the seams, you can't take out a whole lot of attractions without causing a massive drop in attendance, and angry guests because there is a 3 hour wait for Toy Story because Muppets and other stuff is gone. I don't think the goal for Burbank is to drop DHS's attendance to 6 million, and then work on a Carsland for three years while guests complain how much less there is to do in DHS.
$600 million for DHS Carsland. Drop in attendance: let's say conservatively 2 million. (You could even go with the crowd that complains that DHS is now truly a half-day or quater-day park, lines for Toy Story go up half, to one full hour). And when the park reopens, its capacity is similar to where it was before, but you've got an extra million or so guests, DHS now has 11.5 million guests a year, wait times for the attractions soar, the parking lot is having trouble accommodating all of the drivers.
$200 million for DHS Incredible E-Ticket. You lose Backlot, some foreigners complain they were waiting to ride it maybe, less stuff for guests to see, but maybe attendance only falls off 500,000. (Maybe 2,000 less guests per day), at least the thousands who ride Backlot have less to do, but it is a poor ride that may hurt the DHS brand.) Attendance gets a bump, the park is now even more crowded than before.
$600 million for Carsland in the parking lot. No effect on guest attendance, when it opens, DHS has the capacity to deal with the crowds, Backlot gets demolished in five years to make way for an Incredibles E-Ticket.
$600 million for Australia/Avatarland in AK. No effect whatsoever on attendance as it is built on a big empty lot. It opens and attendance goes up 2-3 million.
$250 million for new pavilion with E-Ticket in Epcot. Attendance bumps 1-2 million, the parking lot can handle it, some pressure relieved on MK which doesn't have enough rides.
There are a lot of ways you can spend $200 to $600 million on new lands/attractions at WDW, the question is what is the best choice for the investment. Right now, AK looks to be in a position to gain a new land, increasing park capacity in a park that can handle it, and without removal of existing attractions. WDW hit an attendance record last Easter . . . really hard sell that lands/attractions should be removed in mass when you've got empty space to build stuff.
