"...outsiders say (Disney's) recent fight with Anaheim is a sign it's (expanding)"

[disneydaft]

"Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout
Strawberry Fields forever"

I can't believe that Lennon and McCartney really were singing about a real place....

It was a real place they were singing about. Strawberry Fields was an orphanage in Liverpool, England.


Back on topic, I hope Disney don't throw up a cheap park simply to save them losing the land.
I really hope they have learned a lesson with WDS and DCA.

 

[Lee]

Internet Demagogues Jim Hill and Al Lutz ARE NOT SOURCES... You might as well pick up a college student in Nebraska, or a vagrant off the street and ask his opinion.

Yup. I quit reading after they mentions Jim Hill's name.

And better sources would be.......who?
If the company ain't talking, the best folks to get comments from are those who have the info. Jim and Al know far more than a "vagrant off the street".
That's just silly.

 

[jmvd20]

It was a real place they were singing about. Strawberry Fields was an orphanage in Liverpool, England.

Thanks for the history lesson - should have put a after my comment I guess.

Back on topic, I hope Disney don't throw up a cheap park simply to save them losing the land.
I really hope they have learned a lesson with WDS and DCA.

I think we all hope that, I have never been to DCA and I haven't heard anything that makes me waht to go there either.

 

[joel_maxwell]

Dear Purveyors of the Los Angeles Times -

In the interest of promoting good journalism, and in an effort to preserve what is left of your ethics in reporting, let me pass on one piece of advice.

Internet Demagogues Jim Hill and Al Lutz ARE NOT SOURCES... You might as well pick up a college student in Nebraska, or a vagrant off the street and ask his opinion.

Sincerely,
Enderikari

perfect....

doesnt this completely discredit the article :lol:

 

[marni1971]

It won`t become a `2nd Disney World` - DLP is way ahead in that respect, and TDL is in 3rd.

How do you mean "way ahead" are there plans to make more parks at DLP?

As in DLP is a planned, managed complex of 2,800 acres. Like WDW it has its own road network, highway intersections and designated park / resort areas. It also has the equivilant of WDWs original residential Lake Buena Vista, Hotel Plaza and planned-but-never-built shopping center. A true self contained `new town` like WDW phase one. Better than WDW it has an intergrated transport network connected to the real world, of course sans monorail.

And of course area for a 3rd park and long dormant water park plans.

 

[imagineerfan]

Does anyone know where the strawberry field they speak of is located in Anaheim? I checked google earth and couldnt find any fields (large enough to create another park) near DL.

Did this happen or was it a rumor: Disney tried buying land in Long Beach to create a waterpark with a monorail connecting it to the DLR. Instead LB decided to build its Aquarium instead.

-Dan

 

[Enigma]

And better sources would be.......who?
If the company ain't talking, the best folks to get comments from are those who have the info. Jim and Al know far more than a "vagrant off the street".
That's just silly.

I concur. Al Lutz has an accuracy average of 90% and Jim Hill calls it as he hears it.

 

[joel_maxwell]

i know that the new management is addressing the blunder of DLCA.... but im wondering if this is an expansion of that?

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

As in DLP is a planned, managed complex of 2,800 acres. Like WDW it has its own road network, highway intersections and designated park / resort areas. It also has the equivilant of WDWs original residential Lake Buena Vista, Hotel Plaza and planned-but-never-built shopping center. A true self contained `new town` like WDW phase one. Better than WDW it has an intergrated transport network connected to the real world, of course sans monorail.

And of course area for a 3rd park and long dormant water park plans.

Does WDW own the land in Lake Buena Vista - down 535?

 

[phichi17]

And better sources would be.......who?
If the company ain't talking, the best folks to get comments from are those who have the info. Jim and Al know far more than a "vagrant off the street".
That's just silly.

I think he was making a comment about their overall credibility. I have always doubted both of those gentlemens "inside" knowledge, I am sure I am not alone on this. Not to play kiss up to you, but you and a select few others seem to have much better intel than either Hill or Lutz.

I concur. Al Lutz has an accuracy average of 90% and Jim Hill calls it as he hears it.

I highly doubt your estimate, but hey, I could be wrong.
As far as Jim Hill goes......he calls it as he wants to hear it. I believe Mr. Hill has highly selective hearing.

 

[kcnole]

Al Lutz is as good a source as they come. I have some problems with Jim Hill but Al Lutz is batting around 95% right now on his predictions. Hell, he broke the conversion of the island to a pirates island long before many of the people in the Disney company even knew about it. I haven't seen him say something is coming and have it not be true so far.

Jim has some issues, but even though I have problems with Al's takes on WDW, he's right on in his articles about what's going on in the company.

 

[phichi17]

Al Lutz is as good a source as they come. I have some problems with Jim Hill but Al Lutz is batting around 95% right now on his predictions. Hell, he broke the conversion of the island to a pirates island long before many of the people in the Disney company even knew about it. I haven't seen him say something is coming and have it not be true so far.

Jim has some issues, but even though I have problems with Al's takes on WDW, he's right on in his articles about what's going on in the company.

I am not as critical of Lutz as I am with Hill, and if I stand corrected, so be it.
Back on topic, if an expansion were to occur, where and what? A DVC would in my opinion be a logical step (93% occupancy ain't bad), as would a possible smaller, more immersive park as the company has acknowledged it was mulling over.

 

[Enderikari]

And better sources would be.......who?
If the company ain't talking, the best folks to get comments from are those who have the info. Jim and Al know far more than a "vagrant off the street".
That's just silly.

There is your answer, right there... If the company ain't talking then the reporter needs to work harder to find official sources.... NOT two glorified blog-writers....
A newspaper is supposed to print NEWS, not rumors... Its quite easy in order to differentiate the two. By referring to Jim Hill and Al Lutz (especially as"Internet Watchdogs," heck, I got to laugh at that) as anything other two fans of the Disney Parks who occasionally write primarily negative articles online, you discredit your own story as nothing more than hearsay, which the LA Time did anyway by quoting those two waste-of-the-intertubes. Heck, even if the writer did want to interview some seemingly credible sources, at least go to the ones Disney has been willing to talk to in the past, like Deb Wills or Mark Goldhaber, who have been invited to press events and actually have met some of the decision-makers at Disney.
What's next, is the LA Times going to go to Myspace and ask the profile of Walt Disney what he thinks? Editing Wikipedia and quoting the edit?

 

[Lee]

Not to play kiss up to you, but you and a select few others seem to have much better intel than either Hill or Lutz.

I wish.
They both have their own strengths, as I see it.
Jim has more contacts at WDI and not as much in park ops, so he gets more blue-sky info.
Al relies heavily on cm and TDA personnel, not really straight from WDI, so his info is primarily things that are activly being developed.

Me? I get a little of both.

at least go to the ones Disney has been willing to talk to in the past, like Deb Wills or Mark Goldhaber, who have been invited to press events and actually have met some of the decision-makers at Disney.

And, if Disney hasn't been filling them in "officially" they won't have anything to sayother than to offer opinion. Mark is often around here, maybe he can give us his take.:lookaroun
I just think that if you can't get official info, go where the info is...even if it is "blog writers". Heck, what do I know? I don't even have a blog...I'm just a "board-poster":shrug: .

 

[Enderikari]

I just think that if you can't get official info, go where the info is...even if it is "blog writers". Heck, what do I know? I don't even have a blog...I'm just a "board-poster":shrug: .

If you want information about NASA's latest project, and no one in NASA is talking, you don't go to the kid who owns a cardboard astronaut helmet...

 

[Lee]

If you want information about NASA's latest project, and no one in NASA is talking, you don't go to the kid who owns a cardboard astronaut helmet...

True, but SOMEONE at NASA will likely have told someone, like a Space enthusiast with a web site. That enthusiast now has the info, and may share it with media or whoever. He becomes a second level source.

Example. Before the major announcement a couple years ago, Disney wouldn't officially talk about Everest. However, individuals inside Disney did talk about it...to me and others. I then became a second level source of the information to this board, as did others on other boards. THAT's what Jim and Al are.

Am I making any sense?

 

[Enderikari]

Right, but someone telling someone else something is not anything more than rumors... We could go back and forth all you want about Al and Jim's credibility, and I doubt you and I would ever see eye to eye... but I was making a remark which specifically refers to their source to a newspaper. If someone gets their information from a source who would actually know, then it is the reporters responsibility to find out, from their, as you say "secondary source" who the primary source is and find out from them.

One of the few times where a life lessons learned in a college classroom applies...

Don't do your research on the internet

 

[ToTBellHop]

And I say good luck to any newspaper trying to get someone in the Walt Disney Company to discuss this, or anything unofficial, with them. The only response any newspaper will ever get from an official in the company is the official, canned response. Otherwise, it'll be from an anonymous source in the company. Personally, I'd prefer to hear information from someone who has established credibility as speaking with folks in the company over a single, anonymous source with the company. Unless they were talking with Bob Iger, I'd take it with a grain of salt, and even the CEOs aren't perfect sources...I seem to remember Michael Eisner talking about a christmas layover for Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland............

 

[Lee]

If someone gets their information from a source who would actually know, then it is the reporters responsibility to find out, from their, as you say "secondary source" who the primary source is and find out from them.

Well...maybe.
If the Sentinel, for example, called me to see what I know about the Mansion refurb, I could tell them. They could then print the info, with the stipulation of "internet poster Lee says" or some such. They would not be irresponsible for doing so anymore than a source quoting...say...the Drudge Report. The world turns on inside information, the source of which will never, and should never, come to light.

Yeah, we're never gonna agree on Jim and Al, or on internet speculation and info leaking. Fun to bicker about, though! :lol:

Anyhow...wow...that DLR....growing by leaps and bounds, huh? Place won't be recognizable in 10 years time. DCA either.

 

[basas]

Anyhow...wow...that DLR....growing by leaps and bounds, huh? Place won't be recognizable in 10 years time. DCA either.

As nice as that is for DLR...when are we going to start seeing some more attention to WDW?